As you know, both Martha Coakley and Charlie Baker have floated the idea of authorizing a single casino in Springfield, even if the people vote in November to undo the casino law, because … well, because Springfield voted for one. The obvious logical flaw in that argument, as I and others have noted, is that other places voted for casinos too. Hence nopolitician’s insight, first quoting the question as posed by Globe columnist Shirley Leung.
Here’s what is so confusing about the idea to allow Springfield to go ahead with its casino plans even if the state law is repealed: It ignores the fact that Plainville, Everett, and Revere also voted for gambling. How come Springfield alone would get to gamble?
Because that way the state can continue to ignore the problems facing Springfield – and then blame the city if the casino doesn’t work out.
nopolitician @ Thu 4 Sep 11:49 PM
Depressing, cynical … and probably right.
If you’re familiar with the “Hitchhikers Guide” books, then you’ve heard about the SEP (Somebody Else’s Problem) phenomenon, which effectively renders an object invisible. Casinos make Springfield an SEP, absolving the state from the state from doing anything there or recognizing the city all.
As for the next governor, a Springfield casino hopefully doesn’t turn into a travesty until roughly a decade passes, which makes it a double SEP.
Methinks Springfield’s problem, and a lot of small western Mass town problems are a result of real estate taxes in the state being very regressively used to bolster local budgets in the towns where they are collected – and the state equalization formula for local aid is not making up nearly close for the difference.
That will not change with or without casinos.
free drinks!
pass the chips.
the ballot question is losing 2 to 1. (I’m voting for repeal)
I wouldn’t worry too much about polling yet. Ballot questions are notoriously difficult to poll, and we’re two months out. It’ll be a tough battle, but it really hasn’t begun yet.
I’ve been concentrating on the primary up to now – after 9/9, I’ll be working on RTCD! In fact, my work starts on 9/9, since there’s nothing on the primary ballot about RTCD, I’m planning to hand out hard cards on the steps of the Milford Portuguese Club, where our 4 biggest precincts vote.
…floated during the debate in that media market? If so I would interpret comments about letting Springfield have one to be a matter of tailoring for a local audience rather than excluding the possibility that other communities could have one as well.
has been around for a while from Charlie Baker. Not sure exactly when Coakley first latched onto it. But I have not gotten the impression from anyone that, if the people vote to repeal, restoring Springfield and, say, a Boston-area casino would be on the table.