MassLive story on the LG Debate draws the distinction between the LG candidates on the repeal of the gaming law (Question #3). The debate was held in Springfield, a city directly impacted by the repeal (and one whose voters approved a casino in their city).
While all three said they would honor the will of the voters on a Nov. 9 ballot question, Kerrigan, president of the Massachusetts Military Heroes Fund and a former aide to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, was the only one of the candidates to view casinos as an economic development opportunity and job-creator that is too good for Massachusetts to pass up.
“It’s an easy question for me,” Kerrigan said. “I will vote against the repeal of the law – not just because I think it’s unfair for the city of Springfield, but doing so would hurt the state’s ability to be competitive.
And Cheung:
Leland Cheung, a Cambridge city councilor, and a member of Gov. Deval L. Patrick’s Asian American Commission, said he is morally opposed to casino gambling. But if the state law stands, Cheung said cities impacted by the casinos receive mitigation funds from developers.
Casinos prey on the vulnerable, Cheung said, noting that Asian-Americans are particularly harmed by the industry. “No one beats the house,” he said.
“In reality,” he said. “It’s up to the voters.” Should they decide to vote against repealing the law, Cheung said he will continue his efforts to push for other forms of economic development and state investments in education and infrastructure improvements. “We need to invest in things that result in real prosperity,” he said
And Lake:
Michael Lake, the CEO of the Boston-based non-profit company Leading Cities and a former special assistant in the Clinton White House, said he hoped the voters will repeal the law, arguing that the notion that casinos would restore a city to prosperity is “ a false impression
Interesting stuff.
My disclaimer – my Union and I are actively supporting Leland Cheung for LG.
the LG positions on the casino repeal were first (I think) set out here on BMG three months ago!
Yet that was prior to the Court decision putting the question on the ballot. And before anti-repeal canddiates were leading in at least two primaries (Gov, LG).
I was focusing on the context of this debate being in Springfield -a city directly impacted by the question – as opposed to offering new info. Was flashing back to 1980 and John Anderson offering opposing opinions in the lion’s den.
Why isn’t your union backing Kerrigan? It seemed like casinos were a big factor for Coakley and Tolman getting their endorsements, is it that LG is less significant so it can go to a better advocate on other issues? This is out of curiosity, not a criticism, and I also get that the members have a lot of say in this as well.
While the casino jobs law is an important part of the economic package that my union believes will create jobs and new revenue it is not the single over-riding issue on which we base support. We are not a one note band.
In the case of LG, Leland Cheung has a voting record as a Cambridge City Council that is decidedly pro-worker and union supportive. For me, voting records are important – you ask a candidate to support you with their public vote (and at times on picket lines and rallies) and you should respect that candidates / elected officials record. Leland earned our endorsement based on his record as an elected official. I’d also point out that Leland Cheung received the Pioneer Valley Building Trades Council endorsement (they cover Springfield) while telling them he was pro-repeal. His focus on funding municipal and infrastructure projects carried the day over the single issue of a casino.
We don’t consider the as a LG less significant position. An active, policy driven LG is an asset in state government.
Similar situation for Treasurer in that none of the Treasurer candidates oppose the repeal. My Union could have stayed out of the primary based on that fact. However, the Treasurer has additional responsibilities (the school building fund comes to mind immediately) that warrant endorsing regardless of a difference on the gaming question. In that race Deb Goldberg was a clear leader on policy issues and the other two candidates were handicapped by their voting records in comparison.
As for Governor and AG, gaming helped tip a scale between good candidates however, their records on issues were a determining factor. Both Coakley and Grossman have sided with the jobs issue and Coakley’s record on wage and labor law enforcement tipped the endorsement to her. Either Healey or Tolman would be outstanding AG’s so Tolman’s record as a Rep and Senator was the deciding factor.
And yes membership does have a lot to say on the endorsement process.
I’m curious – while many here have said they are voting for Dr. Berwick because they oppose casinos, I haven’t seen that same level of commitment with regard to the LG race where there are differences between the candidates – why is that?
Three casinos are closing in Atlantic City in the next few months, putting about 8,000 people out of work. Casinos are closing on the Gulf Coast, cutting back in Ohio, Indiana, Kansas. Yes, I know, we have some sort of magic dust in Massachusetts that will prevent this from happening here. Our casinos will be job creating money machines lifting us all “to the next level” (gawd, I hate that phrase, but I hate casinos, so it fits) Don’t ask how, just believe.
My suggestion is this: With all the casinos going out of business, closing their doors, cutting back, does anyone know if the people building our casinos will be buying slot machines, craps tables and the rest at bankruptcy auctions for bargain prices, or would that be considered back luck and cancel out our magic dust hopes and dreams?
That are funded and just waiting to be built instead of a casino creating jobs and tax revenue.
No Casinos included.
Here
Our next future here.
The regional economy cannot support the fictitious revenue numbers proposed by the gambling industry and their lawmaker lackeys. We have a vision and it’s better than urban low-roller casinos.