I just heard the breaking news, and of course came to BMG to discuss it. Since I don’t see anyone else’s more detailed post yet, let me be the first to say it: Thank you David, for your legal work on helping the Repeal team shoot down Martha Coakley’s politically motivated argument against the ballot question!
SJC rules casino repeal question can be put on ballot
The casino industry is now going to pour money in to the state and onto the airwaves to try to sell their snake oil as JOBS and responsible economic development, no matter that all the research and the examples in other states say otherwise. Now the real fight can begin, and it would never have been possible without the strong progressive activism (all stripes of activism actually) from people around the state and here at BMG. This is a big day for Massachusetts!
UPDATE: Some quick reactions:
Don Berwick:
http://www.berwickforgovernor.com/press-releases/berwick-statement-casino-repeal-decision
“I am delighted that the Supreme Judicial Court has determined that the repeal effort can go forward to a vote in November. Casinos are a bad deal for Massachusetts. Where they come, small businesses suffer — the evidence is that they destroy one local job per slot machine. They bring gambling addiction, increased substance abuse, DUI risks, and other safety problems into our communities. The promises of new state revenues are greatly exaggerated, and state expenses will have to rise to repair the damage casinos will do. I am glad that Massachusetts voters will have the opportunity to make their voices heard on this important matter. I am confident that the repeal initiative will succeed.
“Massachusetts is in need of good jobs in our Gateway Cities and elsewhere, but we can build stronger communities and create better jobs without inviting the trouble that casinos bring with them.”
Somerville Mayor Joe Curtatone:
The SJC just ruled the casino question will be on the November state ballot. I never had a doubt as the argument for keeping it off the ballot was beyond specious. Now the real work begins. Casino operators are going to pour obscene amounts of money into Massachusetts in order to preserve their state-granted privilege to undermine our economy and poison our communities.
Casinos are proven failures at generating economic growth. It’s the Wal-Mart effect with crime and addiction layered on top. Massachusetts residents recently have been seeing through the smokescreen put up by the casino operators and their proxies. We need to keep that momentum going. Go to http://www.repealthecasinodeal.org/ to get involved.
Great news, thanks or sharing – now to GOTV!
It was very clear that her decision on the ballot question was poorly reasoned and definitely made me question her judgement and whether she was trying to do her part to help casinos along.
If he is smart, Berwick will repeatedly bash her over the head with this.
I’m a huge Berwick supporter, and I would like to see him continue campaigning in the positive way he has been. He can emphasize his stance against casinos without bashing Coakley.
People (like me) who oppose casinos will be very well aware that Don is the only candidate courageous enough to take the stand he did. I hope that this will be an important issue to the majority of Primary voters.
He doesn’t actually have to “attack” her on the issue. But he should bring up the issue repeatedly and point out the difference between his position and hers.
I don’t know that Berwick will be the one who successfully plays the casino card against Coakley, but her ruling reeks of craven insiderism. It was nonsensical, literally contradicting the wording of the casino law itself. The knock against Martha is she’s in the pocket of the machine (whatever that is, though it surely includes a metric ton of lobbyists). Also, this undermines her fundamental argument for why she should be governor. A central part of her pitch is as AG she stood for John and Jane Q. Public against predatory industries and scam artists. Unfortunately she rendered a preposterous decision that almost green-lighted the purely predatory gambling industry. In one fell swoop she blew apart her “I’m for the common folks” argument.
Anyway, Berwick should press hard on this. Grossman still pays lip service to the cockamamie economic stimulus case for casinos. He literally can’t stop stuffing that foot in his mouth. However, if Berwick can’t manage to best the Dem field, you can expect Charlie Baker to wield the casino issue like a hammer. Seriously, this is the issue he uses to beat Coakley if both of them make the final (I’m hoping for a tea party insurrection in the Republican primary).
On a related note, I really wish Curtatone had jumped into this race. He was WAY out front on the casino issue. His stand against the Secure Communities program made a huge statement for human rights and the 4th amendment. He’s doing actual things on the transportation, economic development and education fronts that look great on a prospective governor CIV. Also, note the relative softness of Berwick’s statement (and that is my main concern with Berwick: that he’ll verbally technocrat himself out of the race) compared to Curtatone making the short, sharp case that casinos are bad for Massachusetts. This is yet another reminder of what we don’t have in the governor’s race.
Voters in Springfield, Revere, Leominister, Plainville and a couple of other municipalities voted for casinos in their communities. The only anti-casino candidate for Governor (self-identified and used in his speech) got 22% at the Dem Convention. The Boston Globe Poll had it 52-41 in favor of the law less than a week ago. Getting repeal on the ballot was only one step and a single issue.
Casino ballot initiatives failed in many more places than they succeeded. The latest Suffolk/Herald poll has the anti-casino vote ahead 47-37. Like I said, I don’t know that Berwick will be the one who effectively wields this hammer. He won’t have the luxury of the casino question on the ballot during the primary election. However, if it’s Charlie Baker vs. Martha Coakley, I expect him to “evolve” on this issue. It will allow him to peel off votes in the middle (anti-casino = pro-family, anti-crime, pro-community, anti-insider politics, not chasing a quick buck at the expense of long-term growth) and to weaken her already weak support on the left. There really aren’t any major issues that have emerged for the November election. Casinos may be the marquee issue this fall and Coakley is there for the taking on it.
Raynham, Plainville, Taunton, Springfield, Leominster, Everett, Revere, and Middleboro some years ago all voted yes by large margins. West Springfield, Milford, East Boston, and a few others voted no along with some town governments that completely refused to allow their citizens to vote and shut down the process. Ironically , the anti-casino movement cheered when the process was shut down without referendum, which makes the drive for statewide referendum the utmost of hypocrisy.
And the Suffolk polling is a farce as the Globe polling showed. Neither side should put much faith in these polls at this point. I do believe the anti-casino movement has closed the gap though in some areas of the state. It will be a battle. I thought this very unlikely to make it onto the ballot. The arguments seemed strong for unconstitutional taking. Your own David was correct in his judgments on this.
And it’s a battle that makes Coakley look terrible. Her main hope has to be that the primary falls before the casino issue heats up and that Baker counters her political bumbling with some bumbling of his own (or that a Tea Party turnout in the Republican primary gives Fisher the nomination). She’s got one of those Monty Python Black Knight flesh wounds.
The law itself specifies that paying the application fee does not in any way constitute a contract with the state, so there never was anything to take. Anyway, it’s coming to a ballot near you in November and it’s shaping up to be a massive fight.
Holyoke voted yes some years ago too — did it twice, in fact. And then when the new legislation was passed and casino developers took an interest in the city, the city said no. Repeatedly, in fact: via its mayoral election in 2011, when the electorate replaced a pro-casino mayor with one who promised not to negotiate with casino developers, via popular protest a year later when the new mayor considered softening that position, and perhaps most emphatically in its 2013 municipal election, when a nonbinding question was on the ballot and went down to defeat by a considerable margin. People who had previously been in favor of casino development changed their minds, both because it’s not 1995 and the overall economic picture isn’t what it was when the idea was first floated and because casinos are no longer what the voters were envisioning when they first began contemplating the question. It’s not inconceivable that voters in Raynham, Plainville, and the rest may similarly have changed their minds.
As for the supposed irony of cheering when referendums were shut down, or when municipal governments “completely refused to allow their citizens to vote,” but approving a statewide referendum on the enabling legislation, I can only say that if you work through the process set out in the legislation you will find that there’s no contradictin at all. Nowhere in the statutory process is there anything that allows a municipality to vote on the abstract question of whether it wants to open the door to casino development. On the contrary, the legislation puts that decision entirely in the hands of the city’s mayor or equivalent. The referendum called for in the statute is limited to whether or not to approve a fully-negotiated final agreement with a specific casino developer, at the very end of the process: it gives the voters of a specific municipality or division of that municipality the right to veto the agreement entered into by their elected officials, and that’s all it does. It gives citizens no other way to participate in any casino-related decisionmaking in their cities, and pretending that it does is a disservice to the overall debate.
The statewide referendum does give voters a chance to answer the threshold question. It’s a completely different proposition.
we’ll see what happens. It would seem that three years of efforts to be dumped away as so much nothing is pretty far out there. And I can assure you that nobody in Plainville has changed their mind. On the contrary, if another local vote was taken, the result would be more overwhelming. Some of the towns that voted yes can really use the jobs and the added revenues. Of course citizens in towns that voted yes like Raynham, Leominster, ect.. that were not chosen might have some bitterness and just might vote no out of that bitterness. It’s been a crazy and strange circus – with shifting alliances – from start to finish and certainly the three year window to implement even the awarding of licenses has opened the doors for casino opponents in a big way.
There is no doubt that many people certainly have less discretionary income these days to spend on any entertainment, let alone casinos, so I’ll concede on that point.
Very shortly before that Globe poll released, a Suffolk poll released that came to a very different conclusion. One or the other is off, but it’s intellectually dishonest for you to continue on BMG only citing the poll you like. At the very least, it could lead you to be as surprised as Mitt Romney was when he lost the election — to similar silent chuckles elsewhere.
I don’t disagree that this is a ‘flesh wound at best’ for Coakley, but mostly because not that many people are paying attention to the govenor’s race, never mind both the Governor’s race and casino repeal movement.
Ballot questions (unlike candidate elections) are very difficult to poll accurately even within a few days of the election. So the polls will seesaw for months on repealing the casino law, and none of it means anything. If you’re against casinos, get to work. If you’re for them, get to work. That’s all that matters.
the most recent poll. Niot sure how that is somehow more intellectually dishonest than citing an older Suffolk/Hrald poll that supports a different position pro-repeal advocates like.
The ballot question is too far off for any polling to be taken seriously at this point. Both sides have not yet begun to fight.
cited the most recent poll, but the other poll came out maybe a week or so before it, on an issue that is lucky to be polled every few months thus far.
I completely agree with David and now you that the “ballot question is too far off for any polling to be taken seriously at this point.” So I suggest that you either admit the polling is mixed or don’t cite one poll you like as authoritative in your posts, as you did several times on this thread prior to David and I’s reply.
According to her statement she simply did what she saw as her job as AG. She knew that it would likely go to the SJC and says she is pleased that the ruling has been made so everyone knows how to proceed. She does not sound terribly upset on the merits.
she’s got to want to play this down.
But we know she’s hired good advice.
As for simply doing “her job”: that is precisely something that we are entitled to judge. Her ruling was, frankly, based on a novel legal theory that did not survive contact with reality.
She sought to deny Massachusetts residents their rights under the state constitution and radically restrict the power of the legislature to enact laws affecting business interests. Fortunately, it was unanimously rejected by the SJC.
I’m left with the sense that she has colossally bad judgment, either honestly (i.e., she came by that legal theory with the best of intentions) or mendaciously (she allowed politics to cloud her ruling).
I’m not sure which is worse, though I understand you contend that it was the former in this case.
The fact pattern is that the AG was an obstructionist to citizens placing this issue on the ballot. She denied access immediately following the passing of the casino (f)law and put her most experienced AAG on the case – Peter Sacks to fight the repeal ballot initiative.
The SJC spanked her in the language of the ruling – soundly.
Let’s not be so naïve as to think that her performances today in media is anything other than a political spin to soften the self-inflicted wounds.
An AG that does have the inner compass (justice, fairness, transparency) and legal acumen to support the people’s right to vote in this case, with the overwhelming precedents is a failure in my eyes. This AG is someone I wish a very delightful retirement from elected politics, soonest.
I get the distinct impression that this is an example of if you agree with her (and on the legality of the question I actually don’t) you will stand up and cheer the AG’s astute legal analysis, but if you disagree you will decry her playing politics. I’m just the messenger on this, relaying what she said in her statement.
The unanimous SJC decision is a direct rebuke to the AG. It talks about, among other things, “common sense.” It’s no part of the AG’s job to enter nonsensical decisions, and her doing so calls into question either her motives or her competence.
She’s the AG and you’re not. You’re free to disagree of course, but I tend to presume she was at least acting in good faith.
The language of the ruling makes it clear that the SJC disagrees with you.
The literal phrase used by the SJC is “departure from common sense”. Who knows whether or not she acted from “good faith” — the SJC has determined that whether in good faith or not, her position was nonsensical.
If, arguendo, so, can we expect her to make judgments and decision of similar quality as Governor?
An AG that does NOT have the inner compass (justice, fairness, transparency) and legal acumen to support the people’s right to vote in this case, with the overwhelming precedents is a failure in my eyes.
Apart from people who feel they would directly benefit economically from a casino, there aren’t many people who are fervently in favor of allowing casinos here. On the other hand, there are a growing number of people who have realized that the damages they would cause and will take note of politicians who side with the casinos.
Personally, I will not vote for any politician who supports the casino bid and will remember in the future which side they chose.
… and it’s clearly emerging that she’s a status-quo candidate, and look how that worked out for us in 2010. In 2014, we need bold, visionary leadership.
Thank you, David, and thanks to the entire team: the signature-gatherers, the donors, everyone.
We have an opportunity to overturn the Commonwealth’s version of Citizens United by repealing the special interest, regressive casino/slots law in November.
We worked hard to bring the Constitution to bear against corporate and political deep pockets.
We have work to do to educate voters about the economics of casinos against the din of “promises.”
Donate http://www.repealthecasinodeal.org
This decision is a plus for Both the Berwick and Healy campaigns and I trust that both will use it positively. They stood with the people over the special interests — this should be obvious to voters.
My bias is against initiative petitions, since I think that in general they are a terrible way to legislate. But I’m making an exception for this one!
the reason that initiative petitions are bad is because they are almost always sponsored by some industry that wants to legislate an economic boon for itself. That is not the case here and it wasn’t the case when greyhound racing was banned.
Sometimes petitions are the only way to counter the pernicious influence of moneyed interests in the State House.
If I have my history right, that is why the initiative process was added in many states, to counter powerful special interests. It works in the reverse, too, but today it operated as intended.
That’s not really why I’m opposed to initiatives. I think direct democracy is not so smart even in principle. But I don’t want to hijack the thread.
All we need to do is look at all the issues on the ballot this year to see why – most on issues that the legislature has failed to act on in anyway for years or decades.
Please be aware that it is incredibly difficult to get an issue on the ballot and even more difficult to win it. Organizations essentially had to get 150,000 signatures through two different phases to get on the ballot. That is not easy.
…to adapt a People’s Pledge to an issue campaign? Something like recognize a local grassroots organization on each side as the official campaign and keep out money spent by groups other than those two.
Problem is, the industry won’t give a damn about a penalty. But it will be interesting to watch who takes Casino money going forward….
for ballot questions. Among other things, there is no limit to the amount you can donate to a ballot question committee. Also, whereas with candidates it’s easy to distinguish the candidate him/herself from issues the candidate supports or opposes, it’s not obvious how to do that with ballot questions.
I’m not sure it would work either, but I was just floating a trial balloon. I was just hoping there would be some way to prevent the casino industry from smothering the state in money with little hope for the opposition to keep up.
…and we beat them at the ballot box by 2 to 1. Let’ s replicate that result!
n/t
to fight this referendum. Go repeal! BTW, is this a binding referendum, or one that the Lege will tapdance around and ignore?
…which means that yes, the legislature retains full authority to undo, re-enact, amend, etc.
And by the way, what a terrible precedent any other decision would have set, not just for referendums but for all legislation.
I’m fairly sure that that, in the end, is why the opinion not only went our way, but did so unanimously, despite the (apparently) hostile views of Justice Cordy in particular at oral argument.
Is there a constitutional basis for referenda?
Article XLVIII of the Amendments to the MA Constitution spells out the initiative and referendum processes including restrictions and how to apply the process to amending the Constitution itself. It’s almost a mini-constitution within the Constitution.
Impressively fast response.
A lot of confusing stuff there, but this is pretty definitive.
Which, unfortunately, is where I think this is headed. But I’m glad to see it on the ballot, and I hope it passes.
I think you’ll see a lot of legislators very reluctant to go repeal the repeal. I might be wrong but I’d expect them to respect the vote on this one.
Globe Poll: 52 – 41 support casino gaming law.
http://www.boston.com/business/news/2014/06/20/globe-poll-voters-support-casinos-don-trust-gaming board/wDE4B1TdnZ6iB2UfWd2lhN/story.html
Months of the Gaming Commission making a mess of the process has soured the public on the Commission but has left a majority supporting the law. And that’s without a well-funded campaign in support of the jobs and revenue created by casino licensing.
Yup – game on. Congrats to the grassroots team that collected the signatures and the legal team that won in the Supreme Court. Now comes the hard part – moving voters to your side.
I don’t think it’s fair when people ask you to speak for all unions, but since you brought it up … I’ve never understood why unions are so jazzed about casinos. I get that they’re big projects and they bring jobs, but aren’t there literally hundreds of other big projects that bring jobs? Why do unions go out of their way to support casinos?
There’s really no mystery here, jimc. The union support for casinos comes primarily from the building trades union and primarily because of the construction jobs.
But, but, you ask, “aren’t there literally hundreds of other big projects that bring jobs.”
Well, maybe not “hundreds” but, yes, there are certainly many other big projects (Olympics 2024!) that promise jobs for union members. Most unions support those too.
To be fair, I don’t really think it’s the job of unions (particularly construction unions) to concern themselves with social policy at the expense of jobs opportunities for their members.
If there was a proposal to build some coal-fired plants in MA, striker and his union would embrace it b/c of the jobs created and not worry about the real/and or perceived environmental impacts?
Building a casino is building a crack house that inevitably destroys families, communities, and other small businesses, and will cannibalize the existing lottery system.
Trade unions that support the casino construction in Massachusetts are as greedy as CEOs of companies that closedown factories and move them overseas, and turned a blind eye to the devastation their actions have caused.
You put an absurdly negative spin on what I said here.
What you apparently want us to see as “money for the unions”, I would argue is much better characterized as “good jobs for workers and members of the union.”
It’s not “greed” to support construction job opportunities. It’s the legal, moral and ethical responsibility of an organization created by workers to further their own interests. It’s not the responsibility of trade unions to decide whether a particular new business is good or bad for society. That’s the job of politicians and all of us as participants in democratic government.
I doubt even the most pro-casino trade unions would agree with this:
Unions make decisions about whether businesses are good or bad everyday. Sometimes, they try to reform them within — through organizing, public pressure and other tactics. Other times, they try to push reforms that would make it harder for these businesses to be ‘bad’ through pressuring government or regulators, etc. Often, there’s an all of the above approach.
I’m sure there are even some businesses considered so bad that most in labor just can’t get behind at all — I imagine there would be no interest in organizing Goldman Sachs, for example.
What you’re really getting at here, though, is whether or not unions think they should be making decisions based on value judgments. Emphatically, most in labor would agree that they should and I believe they do everyday.
By that logic, unions should support ANY job opportunity, and the Dems who consider themselves bound would then have to support that.
There’s something different here. I’m not making accusations of anything murky, but there has clearly been a decision at unions to vocally support casinos. It might be as simple as, they took a vote and the support was overwhelming. But I’d like to know.
Or … the political class decided unions would be the best excuse to hide their own casino support behind. I could see it either way.
Both these constituencies are able to recognize bad business when they see it. And one or both has willfully decide to ignore that and press on.
When I was at the state convention wearing a Maura Healey T-shirt, I went to the AFL-CIO breakfast. A man from a trade union approached me, literally yelling at me saying I did not value unions and I was trying to steal jobs away from the union people by supporting Maura Healey, who is opposed to casinos. There was tremendous strong feeling there. I take these union people at their word that they want the jobs that building casinos will bring.
… I googled “pickets against casinos.” Here are a few of the results.
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
So what?
Of course, unionized employees picket (and take other actions typically part of collective bargaining) in order to further negotiations of wages, benefits and working conditions.
But this has absolutely nothing to do with the debate over whether to build new casinos.
… the unions are picking the wrong friends.
Is a pretty vague term.
First, you’re conflating the construction unions (who wholeheartedly support the casinos) with the hospitality and service unions (like Unite-HERE and SEIU) who are much more on the fence about casinos. For the construction unions building casinos is unquestionably “good” even as the other unions probably would prefer better jobs. Even the service and hospitality unions still support building casinos over the other options on the table (build nothing? more hotels anyone?).
Regardless, this isn’t a matter of the unions “picking the wrong friends.” Unions that organize casino workers are seeking to make existing jobs better. The boss is not and never will be their friend. That doesn’t mean a union should or would oppose the new boss’ efforts to open a new business.
The point is being missed on why the unions and some way to the left of Liberals and Progressives would support something like this. You have stated it very well. These single causes that some Progressives and Liberals take up are not the causes of the real Left. The real Left understands that the value of such a fight is meaningless in the grand picture. The job of the working class and the unions is opportunities for organization. It matters little if it happens on the floor of a casino or an industrial factory. The white collar professional class has no interest whatsoever in that fight.
In my experience the construction unions support nearly 100% of all proposed new construction (as long as the developer has agreed to or his forced by law to hire union labor).
Generally Democratic politicians do the same (at least those who want to continue receiving the union’s political support). When, in the rare instance, a Democrat makes a truly principled argument against a particular project, the unions usually forgive them but they don’t forget.
By your logic, wouldn’t Senator Warren oppose casino development?
But I get your larger point.
Well, the unions are wrong on this. So is the Legislature. So is the Governor. So is Bill Clinton who is the root of “Indian casinos” (they were introduced on his watch).
Can all those people be wrong? Apparently so. I just can’t believe all the progress we’re flushing down the toilet.
Certainly, the Massachusetts Legislature and the Governor are wrong on this. Allowing casinos to be built is terrible public policy and I’d rather see jobs created in just about any other way. And it doesn’t pass the smell test to argue that casinos are in any way a good way to raise revenue.
However I would continue to argue, apparently, that the unions are not “wrong on this.” The unions have no obligation to oppose the legalization of businesses that might have bad societal impacts. To the contrary, they have a responsibility and collective interest in new job opportunities for union members regardless of the associated societal implications.
I also can’t believe all the progress we’re flushing down the toilet.
Several folks have already offered answers to jimc’s question yet I’m still going to throw in my 2 cents.
Construction is Massachusetts (and nationally) has been in a five year slump with unemployment reaching 18-25% depending on the trade. Expanded gaming has been on the table for 20+ years in Massachusetts but the recent ecomonic downturn and its impact on construction jobs has made casino licensing more of a priority for building trades unions.
It takes 5-7 years for a construction project to go from proposal to breaking ground. Hundreds of construction projects were shelved or abandon outright from 2005-10 leaving the construction industry even further behind. And while construction has begun to recover and more construction jobs are being created today then 5 years ago, Construction Unions are more than aware that future projects could be stopped with an oil crisis or other hit on the economy. Having worked for years to pass expanded gaming, construction unions are pushing to get those jobs off the drawing board and into the ground. Most of the commentators have hit the nail on the head – jobs.
The majority of workers in construction are paid hourly and their benefits are based on hours worked. Qualifying for your pension, health care, annuity require x number of hours worked in six month increments (depending on the union). Construction workers don’t get vacation pay, sick days, very few paid holidays so your hours worked and overtime determine your economic stability.
Casino developers build facilities on a 24/7 time lime. That’s a lot of jobs and increased opportunities for younger workers to become apprentices. My Union has seen an increase in apprentice slots over the last year but there are hundreds of young women and men waiting for that chance.Not everyone goes to college – blue collar work with your hands that allows you to buy a house, raise a family and retire with dignity is a reality within the construction trades.
Having been to numerous meetings over the years, I can also say that unions outside construction are supporting expanded gaming. The United Auto Workers, the United Food & Commercial Workers, the Hotel Workers all represent workers in casinos in LV and in CT. Fire Fighters, Teachers and other municipal unions support expanded gaming for revenue reason. Seeing no will in the Legislature to raise the tax revenue necessary to support public safety and vital public services they have taken pro-gaming positions.
My Union is unaware of any developer outside the gaming industry offering to build $1-2 billion projects in Massachusetts that will create construction jobs. And with UAW, UFCW and HERE contracts the jobs created inside the facility offer decent wages and benefits (often for immigrant and non-college educated wokers). Further, from my union’s point of view, the rehab of hotel rooms and casino facilities takes place every 3-4 years creating long term maintenance jobs.
I have yet to meet an elected union official who believes that casinos are the end all and be all to our economic struggles. However given the basic responsibility union leadership has to create jobs for workers they are a tool in the gang box that it would be irresponsible to ignore.
Note DFW – oh yes I, and my union, support construction projects like casinos – – and that pipeline you keep posting about that so many on BMG disagree with you on.
I respect those who oppose casinos based on the social impacts they believe will come with gaming. I’m just in the camp that says the best social program is a job.
You and I are usually allies on these issues striker, and I am disappointed you are backing regressive environmental and social policies for impermanent construction jobs that aren’t even guaranteed to exist, let alone be unionized, since we are dealing with known union busters.
That is disappointing.
I think Harold Meyerson’s article on the future of Labor is instructive, two quotes stand out to me:
Trumka of the AFL-CIO and the SEIU and UNITE HERE are not making the Meany mistake-they aren’t embracing the outmoded guild mentality that fights to preserve every last factory job, that insists on police details, and that tries to sit atop globalization yelling stop. I am all for fair trade, I am all for union labor and prevailing wage laws, and where American construction workers can be hired for big projects I want the unionized ones to get preference.
But there are picket lines in front of casinos in Vegas, which have a history of bad labor relations with service workers. When I was a bankruptcy paralegal on a hotline in the Midwest, a good number of my clients were Chicago cops, firefighters, or Indiana steelworkers who gambled their union pensions away. How is begging for crumbs from a predatory industry that bankrupts blue collar workers standing in solidarity? Where is the class consciousness? It’s short term thinking like this, and siloing the trades away from the service unions, that are hurting not helping the health and growth of the labor movement.
If you want the stretching contest winning lazy Teamster sterotype to die, than it dies by making short term sacrifices for long term progressive gains.
I respect your support as well, even if I disagree with it, but I would amend the quote thusly:
‘the best social program is a good job with fair wages in an industry that plays by the rules and serves the public good. There is no public good from casinos, we survived the loss of Wonderland, can survive the loss of Suffolk Downs which doesn’t even pretend it wants to be a racetrack anymore, and we can survive the defeat of the casinos in this referendum. Policies like these needlessly pit workers against one another when we share a common enemy.
Restoring bridges, additional rail lines, and turning things into more energy efficient buildings would be better jobs than building casinos.
And for what it’s worth, my Cambridge upbringing was in Tip’s old neighborhood of North Cambridge, not the wine and brie set in Harvard Square, and my ma and dad are both retired union members voting against casinos. As are my more socially conservative brother and sister-in-law. It’s the rare bad idea that brings a lot of different people together in opposition.
…I couldn’t agree more! I’m sitting right now in the sun room of my very good friend, one of the leaders of Casino Free Milford. His truck has all the opposite bumper stickers of my truck, except the one that says “Keep Milford Casino Free”. We’re getting together tonight for a glass of wine and a celebration of the SJC’s .ruling today.
it seems Foxwoods might have something to gain by switching sides at this point. I can see it now. Foxwoods operatives now backing the Repeal effort in Massachusetts to protect their CT interests. Nothing would surprise me after watching this whole circus play out. Enjoy your wine 🙂
From what I understand, they’re working in Fall River and New Bedford in the hope of obtaining the southeast license – doubtful they’d be an ally.
the white collar professional class is totally disengaged from the plight of blue-collar workers, organization of blue-collar workers, and there is no case you can make otherwise, Capitalism such as it is. There is no “we” that you speak of. Casinos aside, that is much of the problem going on in this country.
Often, the progressive movement has been fractured or farsighted enough that we haven’t made labor a big enough priority. It doesn’t shock me that this has happened, since so many in the progressive movement come from middle class or upper middle class backgrounds and didn’t have a great deal of family members in unions — and especially blue collar unions.
There are a lot of things that were left on the table when Democrats had a majority in the US House of Representatives and a Super Majority in the Senate – some that I wouldn’t blame the “progressive movement” on, even if we didn’t always fight hard enough for them, but which has kept labor in a precarious positions.
Things like the fact that we didn’t push through legislation when we had democratic majorities in Congress that would have made it easier to organize, or that we allowed so much of the stimulus to get eaten by tax cuts instead of construction projects when people in the building trades were absolutely desperate for jobs.
Imagine how much better we may all be better off today if labor could be on the offensive in more states, growing membership, or if a stronger stimulus saved a lot more jobs — getting us out of the Great Recession sooner, with less total damage.
More locally, the progressive movement has often supported candidates who have been disappointments on labor issues — who may say nice things about labor and avoid crossing picket lines, but will cut benefits for teachers and public workers just as easily as they’d business executives would — and follow the Scott Walker method of doing it without any form of collective bargaining whatsoever.
I think one of the real consequences to these progressive failures on labor issues is that we see a lot of unions coming out for a ‘table scraps’ issue like legalizing slots, which runs deeply counter to so many of the socioeconomic issues unions care about.
We have to recognize these failures and get better at addressing them, because if we do both the progressive movement and labor movement will be much stronger.
much better than I can manage. It’s very hard to reconcile this issue from a variety of different political view points ryepower. People are really all over the map on this single issue as you know. Some on the left and labor seemingly on the side of casino owners but that’s not really the case at all when considering the big picture. Progressives teaming up with moralist and bootstrap Conservatives on the anti side. Libertarians on both sides. And so on. It’s all very weird. Might pop in for a few comments from time to time seeing both sides really should be heard on this issue leading up to the vote. I certainly don’t think the law will cure all that ails. I just don’t see the destruction and debasement that’s being predicted from the anti side. At this point, I really have no more predictions on how this will play out. I really couldn’t see this going on the ballot but was obviously dead wrong. I’m certainly not going to try and predict the outcome of a statewide referendum after that although I think the law will stay by a good margin. Who knows.
When I said striker was fighting over crumbs, it was my analysis, not a direct criticism of organized labor. Democrats, including Bill Clinton, are just as responsible for their decline and loss of influence. It pained me to see the Teamsters and one of the local SEIU’s go Rahm’s way in the upcoming election-since he may be our most hostile anti-labor Mayor in quite sometime. When the teachers struck, I was struck by how many so called liberals and progressives immediately latched onto the media narrative blaming the teachers and particularly blaming Karen Lewis. So, we got some work to do, but when elements of labor back Keystone, oppose immigration reform, or back casinos-we also have a responsibility to try and win then back to the right side of those issues and look at the bigger picture. It’s not as narrow or reductive as a pile of jobs here, or a pile there-but how do we create a system that works for everybody?
Kuttner, Meyerson, Stiglitz, and Krugman would all tell you that unions, when they advocate for the entire middle class, can help lift everyone’s wages and lead to universal changes in benefits, worker safety, and wages and not just for the select few in their membership.
Let me respond to a couple of your issues.
Let’s take that piece by piece. By definition construction jobs are impermanent. You build it, the work is done, you get laid-off and you look for the next job.
“Aren’t guaranteed to exist” – which is why construction unions support project after project. Projects run out of funding or never get approved in the first place. Always having work in the pipeline (no pun intended) is how you maintain a building trades workforce. So while supporting casino projects my union is also supporting funding for more school projects, private sector development, wind power and whatever the next job creation proposal may be.
Bottom line – jobs won’t exist if no projects, including casino developments, don’t happen. Jobs may exist if we fight for them.
“Let alone be unionized, since we are dealing with known union busters” –
Section 16.18 of the law you’d like to repeal includes this language:
Mohegan Sun has already signed a Project Labor Agreement, ensuring the construction will be done based on community standards. So has Penn National in Plainville,. And MGM Grand in Springfield has signed an MOU with the construction trades and for the long term jobs,
While I won’t speak for them, it is my understanding that the UAW, the Teamsters, IBEW #103 and the UFCW have all signed agreements for union representation inside Mohegan Sun.
I’ll admit I’m not a big Steve Wynn fan and my support goes to Mohegan Sun for the Regional license. Wynn will have to deal with the Labor Harmony requirement in the law and has said through spokespeople they will sign a PLA with the trades.
As for picket lines – contract disputes and representation fights are part of life in the Labor-Management world. My union has had members on strike, picketing jobs and settled those contracts.
Let me match your bankruptcy paralegal experience with my union experience. Taking calls from members who haven’t worked in months, who are losing houses, having family breakups over financial hardships caused by lack of work, facing medical bills because they didn’t get the hours for health insurance, gaps in their pension credits for lack of work – all that lead to alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence. Losing a home, family and future to unemployment is no prettier than losing it to compulsive gambling. And gambling addiction is an illness that can be treated. Unemployment isn’t.
To you it’s begging for crumbs, For me it’s years of new construction work that means wages, health care and pensions. It’s long term maintenance work that could be open to older trades men and women who struggle in the new construction project. It’s opportunities for young people to have a career in construction through apprenticeship openings.
I’ll agree this will cause riffs between some progressives and the Labor Movement (I’m as progressive as they get and I’m pro-casino jobs, so you don’t get to claim all progressives in this fight). However progressives and Labor have good common ground on immigration and other work-related issues to carry us through
Jobs are a public good. With federal unemployment benefits cut off since January and a stupid fight at the State House over cuts in unemployment benefits tied to minimum wage increases (that took up time and energy for no public good) I’m in the camp that says fight for every job possible.
I tried to include links but technology escapes me:
http://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/MGC%20Summary%20of%20the%20Expanded%20Gaming%20Law%20%20Permitting%20Zoning%20and%20Development%20Sections%20update_tcm3-40977.pdf
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/01/mohegan_sun_signs_union_labor.html
You do have a profound responsibility to your members that are in immediate help and need all the help they can get, and I respect that, and it’s partly the fault of liberalism as a whole for getting decoupled from labor that we are living in the universe where casino gambling is viewed as a lifeline for the trades. I’m with you in raising the minimum wage, extending unemployment, and even on wage insurance and a universal income at some point-but many f those are long term ideas that won’t get anywhere thanks to the current composition of the GOP House.
That said-these jobs will last for this project- but the casinos will last for decades and their social costs will be disproportionately felt by the working class. That is a fact. And once we let one in it can open the floodgates. These aren’t being built in Wellesley, but in communities that are truly struggling and in my own experience, communities that struggle more, not less, after they get casinos.
The short term needs of your members shouldn’t outweigh the long term needs of the entire Commonwealth-particularly since I’m far less bullish these projects and those controlling them will provide as many jobs or benefits as they claim they will.
Reasonable people can disagree without being disagreeable.
Yes the construction jobs on casino projects will go away as all construction jobs do. However, as I said earlier, there are maintenance and rehab jobs that will last as long as the casino operates. And there are Union represented jobs inside the casino / hotel that will go on as long as the casino operates.
I don’t discount that there is a potential social impact around the issues you and others have rung the warning bells about. And I never said casinos are a lifeline for the trades – they are a tool we cannot afford to overlook.
Is that it pretty much boils down to supporting construction jobs at all costs. While I don’t think that is an unreasonable attitude for you to take, it also pretty much ends your ability to convince anyone who doesn’t believe that new construction jobs is a reason to support something you would otherwise oppose.
Furthermore, it is not a very convincing argument for those of us who see new and ongoing construction projects all over Boston, Cambridge and the suburbs.
If you want to push for more jobs building housing or offices or new restaurants or improved roads or bridges, then I am all for it. Those kinds of projects are good for everyone and helps the local Economy to grow. Casinos on the other hand only will for the most part help only those who are directly employed by them, and otherwise will suck money out of the Economy and export it elsewhere. And when the Casinos start to fail — as they inevitably will given the saturation of the gambling market — the State and local communities are going to be forced to concede tax revenue to avoid job loss.
Whose funding that housing, office or bridge construction? I keep hearing how this isn’t the right type of development but no one has posted a link to a developer planning a $1 billion project in Massachusetts on housing, offices or bridges.
In fact the AFL-CIO Building Investment Trust is funding such projects (Washington St in Lynn being on that list) but that takes pension money. Where does pension money come from? Hours worked.
Simply saying build other things isn’t an answer. Put some money on the table. The casino groups are.
I remember when Wonderland was voted down, my dad and brother voted against it because of opposition to organized gambling (my dad as a substance abuse counselor, and my brother for moral reasons), while my ma voted for it since she knew people that waited tables there.
There are a lot of people in that latter category-swing voters who may be convinced already that gambling is harmful, but also concerned that if it is going to happen anyway it might as well create good paying jobs. I think really getting into the nuts of bolts of this proposal to show that it won’t create jobs, while championing alternative streams of revenue and job creation (our roads certainly suck and could use some rebuilding, so could the T!), is the way to go. It’s why Berwick might be the right candidate at the right time to advance this proposal.
Let’s get this straight. The Casino developers aren’t charities. Yes, they are fronting a lot of money, but they fully intend to make it back *many* times over. And that money is coming right out of the pockets of the middle class in this state. If you could convince me that casinos would primarily prey on tourists from abroad (or at least out of state), I might feel a little bit different about the drag on the Economy, but we all know that is not going to be the case.
To your other point, why is one billion dollar project better than ten hundred million projects? As I said, there is active construction going on all over the Boston metro area, and it very much seems to be accelerating. As to roads and bridges, we all know that money has to come from Government, so hopefully the unions are spending as much of their political capital lobbying for those types of projects as for casinos.
The money has to come from the government which means that the DeLeo wrecking crew would have to vote for a tax increase rather than vote to let the working poor voluntarily tax themselves into bankruptcy in exchange for a few hundred jobs near their districts and I am sure some sweet perks for voting the right way.
Progressives can’t just vote this down and scream about the process-we gotta also pay to play and we do that by forcing votes on new revenue streams to pay for needed projects. I am sure the suburbs can pony up some money (sorry in advance Christopher) to finally pay for this decrepit system for the T.
It’s why the Olympics are so laughable-it took a bridge collapse killing someone to finally investigate the Big Dig and fix it and it will take chasing after gold at the end of the rainbow with another boondoggle project for decent public transit to get a fair day in the General Court. That’s what I love about the Massachusetts Legislature-too tight fisted and Puritanical to actually create a livable region but also still convinced it’s the Hub of something.
proposed in MA. there could be any number of smaller ones that add up to provide the same benefit without the casino downside. Also, there is the just proposed Don Chiofaro project in downtown Boston as an alternative.
Donald Chiofaro Proposes Two Skyscrapers for Boston Waterfront
There is also this from last year:
Quincy begins huge project to rebuild tall, urban downtown
This has been the argument they used to convince labor and politicians, and it’s just wrong.
Casinos will cost us thousands of jobs. If they were actually a net positive, I would consider supporting them. Instead, state after state has shown what happens: casinos replace other spending options like restaurants, contract work, entertainment venues, bars, and other local establishments.
This is why the casino states have the worst economies in the country. This is why cities like Detroit, Queens, Atlantic City, and Cleveland have watched casinos destroy the economy around them.
Casinos kill jobs, plain and simple. To cede this argument is to lose this fight against them. The people who will get make money are the casino operators, just like every one of them has been very clear about. This narrative of “jobs or not jobs” does not reflect the reality of the casino economy and the devastation slot machines cause in the local job market.
I, personally, am in this fight to save local jobs, and I have spoken with plenty of people, union or not, who are too.
Battle opinions.
Casinos create jobs in the same way that Walmart or grocery store auto-checkout machines do: they replace existing jobs with more automation and fewer people.
How many people does it take to run 10,000 slot machines? If that money were spent in other ways, how many jobs could that support in an economy?
There is plenty of research to show how the jobs are lost (and plenty of failed examples of states and cities), but just on a purely intuitive level: isn’t it clear enough that jobs will be lost when billions of dollars in spending switch from the existing economy to rows of blinking machines?
I must commend striker on this important, informative and well written post. (I also like jconways’ amendment to the last line.) While on balance I think the pernicious effects of casinos tip the scales solidly against them, advocating for living wage jobs is deeply important. The middle class is being gutted. Building casinos strikes me as a fool hardy way of saving anyone in the 99%. But we do have to figure out some way to do just that. It’s part of the same continuum as the minimum wage fight.
Tribalism takes many forms and wears many masks. Boiled down – here’s my tribe. I care about my tribe. I don’t care if something hurts all the other tribes as long as it benefits mine.
Even if we were to assume that that these “jobs” were a net benefit for labor unions, it’s an incredibly irresponsible position to take for a couple of reasons.
1. You aren’t the only people living in this State. You aren’t worried about the communities that your families have to live in? You want your children to grow up in areas with significantly higher rates of crime, prostitution, gambling addiction, and the host of other social ills that Casinos carry? Drug dealers have to put food on the table too – but we stand up to their line of work because it’s bad for our communities. And yes, I did just compare building a casino to dealing drugs. You would, in fact, be a part of the infrastructure of the drug of gambling. Check out the recent child prostitution sting in Arizona. You would be building a place where people flock to in the hope of raping children. They don’t show that on the flashy Foxwoods ads, though.
2. Who do you think is going to end up at these Casinos? I’m sure the fruits of their labor will be good when the casinos are going up, but what about after? How many construction workers, in the years after the job is done, will see their paychecks get sucked into the pockets of the casino they built? Does the union provide support for gamblers anonymous? Casinos are a for-profit business that grows sucking people in, and using scientifically proven methods, ESPECIALLY in regards to slot machines, to cause you to have a psychological addiction. You no longer care about winning in losing – just playing. I can’t imagine you wouldn’t care how many of your union brothers and sisters get stuck in that hole. And they will if those casinos get built.
At some point the union tribalism needs to take a back seat to a sense of greater good. We’re all neighbors, here. We all are participating in the same social contract. We may not agree, have spats, fight, and so on – but that’s natural. You can’t just view an issue from the eyes of a labor leader who ONLY worries about the next job for his guys. Any decision made without the consideration of the greater picture is probably going to be a bad one.
And if these casinos go up, I hope everyone remembers that they didn’t just appear out of thin air.
I have responsibility for one small part of the social fabric – employment for the men and women who are members of my union; enforcing the contract that provides wages, pensions, health care and futures for those dues paying members; and making sure their rights are respected.
Unions, including mine, have taken and will continue to take social policy positions (as an example – my union wrote legislators urging them to keep the anti-marriage equality question off the ballot). We’ve taken a position in favor of the gaming law as a job creation tool when no other major developers have come forward with projects to put thousands of building trades men and women to work.
Just for the record, I live in a surrounding community, less than 10 miles away. And while I love my city we already have high crime rates, prostitution, drug dealers, drunken driving, domestic violence – all without a casino in the area. Oh please – casinos are now responsible for child rape?
And thank god they didn’t – they appeared after creating thousands of jobs that fed families, paid college tuition bill, paid mortgages and rents, funded pensions.
How many family businesses will lose their livelihoods when people spend their billion+ every year over to the new casinos? Steve Wynn or another executive will take home hundreds of millions of dollars in profit back to Vegas — where did all that money come from, and where is it currently being spent?
Casinos will kill existing jobs plain and simple, in much greater numbers then the temporary construction jobs they will sustain for a year or two. We would be much, much better off building anything else, since pretty much only a casino will actually extract wealth and jobs from our communities over decades to come.
This is not a partisan or ideological argument, this is the simple economic fact about the casino business models.
Do you live in a 10 mile radius of any of these proposed casinos? If you do, good news if you like foreclosed properties, b/c that’s what you get with casinos. Gambling addiction double with casinos, do you know what that means, more domestic violence and income inequality. But we don’t live in a commonwealth, we live in the here and now and you want yours and screw what happens after you and your buddies pack up after the last nail is hit and parking lot line is painted, on to the next project.
Find something else to build. If I believed Keystone had any of the negative impacts on the environment that casinos have on society, then I would not support that project either. But I don’t and the question to you is, do you believe the benefits of building a casino outweighs the liabilities?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/24/opinion/frum-casinos-harm/
I really couldn’t ask for a better answer than that. I get it.
As you know, union support sways Democrats on this. A lot of officials who might otherwise oppose casinos do nothing because they think unions want them. (Funny how that works … they don’t always have labor’s back, but labor provides a good excuse for them in this case.)
showed a remarkably different picture, with the billionaire vampirous casino owners who want to suck our communities as dry as they can very much on the losing end.
Game on indeed.
certainly the case of vampirous billionaire owners in general can be made – depending on one’s politics – but to single out one industry as the end of civilization is pretty hysterical, Capitalism such as it is. Penn National, the company in charge of the Plainridge project seems pretty vanilla as far as vampires goes.
http://www.toledofreepress.com/2012/11/29/casino-answers-critics-with-six-months-of-success/
Written by Sarah Ottney | Managing Editor |
(Excerpts)…
Good neighbors
“Brenda Schwind, vice president of the Rossford Business Association (RBA), said the casino is a great partner, with St. Jean regularly attending meetings, promoting member businesses to employees and offering financial sponsorship. Everybody Ive talked to, even people who were really leery of the casino coming in, are impressed with the facility and Ive heard nothing but good comments, said Schwind, of Directions Credit Union. I think people have been very surprised. They’ve proven to be a very good neighbor.”
” Rossford Mayor Neil A. MacKinnon III agreed. It’d be hard to find a day you couldn’t find a team member from Penn Gaming in a Rossford business, MacKinnon said during a recent Rossford City Council meeting. Ive been in business quite a while now and I know these guys are sincere and they are for real. I consider them friends and I consider them part of the fabric of the community. Their participation in the RBA has been phenomenal. ”
” Toledo Mayor Mike Bell also feels the casino is a positive asset, said Public Information Officer Jen Sorgenfrei. The revenues are definitely aiding the city budget, contributing to local philanthropy and supporting community organizations, Sorgenfrei said. ”
” Bill McFarland, interim superintendent of Rossford Schools, said the district has had no issues with crime or traffic, as some parents feared. We really have seen no effect. We hardly know its there to be honest with you, McFarland said. The hysteria and paranoia I think has long been forgotten. I think its functioning really well and I dont think its having any negative effect on our community at all.”
The benefit of a casino are immediate and short-term – the detriments of a casino take longer to come to fruition, and are long term. Ask those same folks for their opinion 10 years from now – if any of them still live in the area.
Just Google “Atlantic City” if you want to know.
Add Chris Christie to your Atlantic City Google search! Two floundering entities in one …
looks delicious!
Opponents generally respect the motive of unions and building trades support for casinos. You are looking out for your own interests and no one denies that construction is positive economic development and growth. What I have a hard time understanding is the disconnect between labor and the regressive, corporate monopolistic and predatory nature of casinos/gambling industry. It is not like it is a partner that has treated labor with care and/or respect (City Center, Las Vegas – workers denied wages for months)
The net costs, impacts and drastic declines in revenues are the reasons that support has waned, and will continue to do so as Mass voters – who are intelligent get more reality-based information. Casinos are failing everywhere and states are bailing them out with taxpayer monies.
Support is soft at best…..I am sure of one thing……we will see lots of polling between now and November.
The state already has a predatory gambling racket in mini-casino form on nearly every street corner.
I don’t think we should hurt our chances to convince people to vote against casinos by turning this into a puritanical jihad against all forms of government sanctioned gambling, even if its a good idea.
I don’t think we want to turn people who currently play the lottery against us.
… in what way are casinos worse than the lottery for the players and the communities in which those players live?
Certainly, the odds of winning with the lottery are terrible. The number of jobs (a couple per convenience store) are lower. The state revenue raised from the lottery is about $1 billion (thanks in large part to the criminally low 72% pay-out) while three casinos would contribute about that same amount as a 25% tax on their profits (even as they offer a much more reasonable 90%+ pay-out to the player).
I don’t actually support repealing the lottery because prohibition doesn’t work. But supporting the lottery “for the children” is pretty regrettable public policy and I’d almost rather have three resort casinos than the lottery on every corner.
Convince me I’m wrong…
Casinos can, you want to plan ahead and just bring cash and leave the cards at home there are payday loans and lines of credit that can be directly withdrawn from your bank account if you so desire, it’s an addiction that can destroy families as much as alcohol or drugs. I’ve had cops, firefighters, steelworkers, and others lose their pensions in a single bad night and call me the next day to file bankruptcy at the old firm I worked at. I’ve had a mother of four struggling to pay for pills for her disabled husband say she spent her savings “on the boat” to try and pay her creditors back. That is the logic of a desperate person-putting their life savings on the line in the hope of paying off their debt. And those are the people these industries attract.
You put it in Everett, put it in Eastie or Revere, and the working poor who are carless will go. Most of the visitors will be walk on’s from the surrounding community. I have a Gary based co-worker at my current job who actually drives home a longer way so she can avoid the temptation of exiting off the Bishop Ford Expressway and going to the Horshoe Casino in Hammond, IN. A town much like Aurora or Joliet IL that didn’t see their downtowns revitalized after the casinos rolled in, but actually saw property values go down and businesses close (since nobody wants to live near them, nobody who isn’t going to them wants to dine or shop near them, and all the entertainment and eating is inside). It’s one of the worst investments a locality can make.
you’re cherry picking information for your cause. We all do it, but in this case, the bad examples you display are in the vast minority. In a study a few years ago 82 % of community leaders say casinos have done good for their community . In the same study only 55 percent of the mayors, county executives, police chiefs, city managers and other local leaders had a favorable opinion of casinos before they were introduced. After witnessing the positive impact on their communities, 75 percent said they would now vote to allow casinos. Your views and opinions on this are just that. They are not facts by any stretch of the imagination as much as you would like to present them as such.
I’d like to see the ages of the casinos where local community leaders are praising them. As I said above, in the first few years, casinos seem great, but once homes start getting foreclosed and businesses shut their doors (with only pawn shops left thriving), community leaders will change their tune.
I linked to my examples…
Yes, what studies real data with a link so we can see if it was funded by the casino industry and if those mayors were on the casino industry dole.
I did some googling on “82 % of community leaders say casinos have done good for their community”. The only study I could find with results remotely similar to what noparty claims is this one. (PDF) None of its results are nearly as positive as noparty’s claims. You’ll note the report is hosted on the American Gaming Association website, and has the AGA logo on its front page. Obviously paid for by the AGA. Grain of salt.
to talk about lottery reforms, not that one was worse than the other or anything of the like.
That said, slots *are* worse than the lottery by far, both in terms of getting people to spend more of their dollars and in terms of them developing addictions and “problem gambling.”
This has actually been measured in numerous ways by scientists and economists.
The casino industry even has a term for one of their big goals with players — getting them to “play to extinction.” That isn’t an industry term you’re going to hear very often in the State Treasury Office.
Let’s win this round first.
I don’t think Coakley’s opposition to this being on the ballot will have any effect on the votes she gets. But there could be an ancillary effect where more people are motivated to vote, and the more motivated people could be anti-casino. So it could hurt her there, and Grossman too, and help Berwick.
But basically I agree with striker; the issue is too close to really decide the race either way. As of now — early, but late — it’s probably not enough to swing the race.
I think the impact of the question on the primary will depend on which constituency is more effective getting out their voters. If Trade unions and their supporters can get out the vote than Berwick will be more likely to do poorly. If the grassroots people who have been fighting against the casinos can get out their voters that will benefit Berwick and Healey. As is usually the case the key is the GOTV.