Unanswered Questions Loom Large in the Casino Debate

By  Joseph A. Curtatone

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.)

Just two months back, I wrote an opinion piece for the Somerville News in which I made the case that casino gambling might not be the best route to sustainable economic growth for the state in general and for Metro Boston in particular. I suppose you could say that I was gambling that my friend Governor Patrick was going to, at the very least, take a go-slow approach to the casino question.

I wasn’t trying to draw a line in the sand - only to raise some concerns. I pointed out that the two tribal casinos in neighboring Connecticut were located well away from urban areas in order to cut down on some of the costs and social problems that casinos can bring. I pointed out that cities and towns depend on local aid from the state lottery, which was likely to be undercut by casino gambling, and that any change in the state’s gambling policy would have to include some reasonable guarantees that cities and towns wouldn’t be penalized as state gambling revenues were siphoned off in new directions.

tiiBut now the Governor has come down firmly in favor of big-time casino gambling in Massachusetts. Without consulting most municipal officials, his own Local Government Advisory Committee, or the Massachusetts Municipal Association, Governor Patrick has proposed three state-licensed casinos (a Wampanoag tribal casino could mean four in all). Any or all of these could be in urban areas.

The Governor has proposed that the hundreds of millions of dollars in state tax revenues from these casinos be used for two entirely worthy purposes. The first would be providing residential property tax relief - cities and towns wouldn’t get more aid in order to meet costs without raising taxes; instead the money to would go directly to residential property owners so that they could pay local property taxes as they rose naturally under the structure and restrictions imposed by Proposition 2½. The second would be to help meet the cost of upgrading and maintaining the state’s deteriorating roads and bridges.

As for the costs of coping with gambling addiction, responsible-gambling education, broken families, abandoned children and the local road, public safety and utility infrastructure needed for “destination resort” casinos, the Governor has proposed the creation of state-run trust funds that will dole out money to local (and “adjoining”) communities affected by casino development.

But what will the Governor’s proposals mean for existing lottery revenues, which are supposed to be redistributed as local aid? The expectation is that lottery revenues will go down as casinos open up  – although no one knows by how much – with a resulting decline in aid to cities and towns (currently well below pre-2002 levels).

And what effect will the casino proposal have on the chances of the local-option meals and hotel taxes in the Governor’s Municipal Partnership Act (currently bogged down in the legislature)? Will the legislative leadership decide that casino dollars will solve all our problems and reject the need to take a broad-based, long-term approach to reforming local revenue? No one knows.

And what exactly is the definition of an “adjoining” community? In the Metro Boston area, how close to an urban casino does a city or town have to be in order to qualify to seek aid from a state trust fund? Again, no one knows.

In Massachusetts, a state where tourism is already a large part of the economy, will casino gambling draw even more tourists or will it simply reroute and/or divert the ones we already have? As the Boston Globe pointed out last Sunday, some experts are skeptical of locating casinos near urban centers that already serve as major tourist destinations.

To help us answer all of these questions, and to come up with a strategy designed to get cities and towns back to pre-2002 levels of local aid, the Massachusetts Mayors Association is convening this week - right here in Somerville’s Davis Square. We will be hearing from neutral experts on the impact of casino gambling and we’ll be discussing our options for how best to respond to the Governor’s proposal.

I’m confident that, in the near future, we’ll also hear directly from the Governor or other senior leaders in his administration.

Deval Patrick and Tim Murray campaigned hard on restoring a true partnership between the state and its cities and towns. Right now - with the state appearing to retreat on commitments to restore local aid, with rising uncertainty about the promised timelines for urgently needed transit projects and with ominous proposals for “competition” in auto insurance that could sharply raise rates for urbanites and younger drivers - that partnership is beginning to look increasingly fragile.
 
Working out a shared approach to answering questions around the local fiscal impacts of casino gambling is essential to maintaining a sense of trust and cooperation between local and state government - both here in Somerville and across the Commonwealth.

Comments

[Solh Zendeh]

America's child-like obsession with getting something for nothing has never been more clear. From the gambling addicted poor, to the middle class cashing out their homes, to the governor building casinos instead of raising taxes or cutting spending.

Pathetic.

[Election]

Childish? I agree. What else do you expect from a Gov who HAD to have the luxury black car at our expense, right after becoming Gov? He was forced to pay for it himself, but talk about childish...

[Property Tax]

"....the middle class cashing out their homes"
I wish people would stop using this misleading and often untrue phrase. Yes, many have taken adavantage of the rise in their property's value, and 'cashed out'. And why not? It's capitalism at its' best! However, there are many, particularly those on a fixed income who simply cannot afford the rising property tax which goes along with a rising 'value'. That is cashing out by default, not by choice. And many older citizens are simply ready to downsize their homes and lifestyles, and the timing worked out well for them. It's not quite as simple as people try to make it.

[Fred Berman]

The Mayor has it right on the casino issue. Not only does the focus on gambling derail the discussion about local option taxes, it also diminishes the chances that the State will take the steps recently called for by the Transportation Finance Commission to put our transportation infrastructure and the MBTA on firmer financial footing.

A recent report pegs per capita spending on the Mass. Lottery at about $832 here in Somerville ($823 in Boston). That’s about $1,900 per household (average size 2.3 people), or 4% of the area $46,000 median household income.

That might not sound like much ... until you look at lottery spending as percentage of "discretionary" income, that is, income after taxes (say, 20%); housing costs - including heat and utilities - (33% or a very modest $1,278/month); and food (at a modest $25/day), clothing, health care, and car expenses (say another 33%).

$1,900 is a whopping 30% of the $6,440 that remains after all the essential expenses. That's alarming enough.

If only half of Mass. residents play the Lottery (a crude guess), those folks are spending 60% of their discretionary income on Lottery tickets. More, because lottery players typically have below-average incomes.

Did someone say there’s no gambling problem?

Where exactly will casino revenue come from? From that hypothetical 50% of the population that doesn’t play the Lottery? From what little discretionary income is left in the pockets of Lottery habituates? From out-of-staters who come to Massachusetts to gamble?

If the casino bounty comes from out-of-staters, will they still spend money on other Massachusetts attractions, or will casino gambling siphon off money from those other tourism destinations, and therefore not really add tax dollars to the State?

And if there really are so many gambling tourists, can we expect other states to sit still while Massachusetts soaks up their money? Or will our casinos end up lobbying for lower taxes so that they can compete with casinos licensed by neighboring states?

As the Mayor suggests, casino gambling is a house of cards, not a solid building block for our economy. Instead of betting the future on addictive behavior that disproportionately hurts the working class, let’s focus on job training and REAL economic development that helps Massachusetts residents and our State Treasury regain firmer footing.

[Election]

I saw some old guy yesterday, with a stack of 100 or so of those scratch lottery thingies. Made me feel sad.

[it *is* funny]

Totally "not in my backyard" I'll admit it, but some of those really economically depressed areas out in Western Mass or down close to Fall River could use the jobs and the tourist dollars. I don't want to see a casino in Metro-Boston but I'm not sure it doesn't make sense for those who don't have a Freedom Trail to draw visitors.

[Ron Newman]

But Western Mass. has its own array of tourist attractions already - Tanglewood, Jacob's Pillow, Shakespeare & Company, Berkshire Theatre Festival, Mass MoCA, Williamstown Theatre Festival, Clark Art Institute, Norman Rockwell Museum, etc. Why would you want to plop a casino down in the middle of all that?

[Election]

Sorry, but what "jobs" are we talking about anyway? These are mostly dead-end crapola jobs, at best.

[Solh Zendeh]

Property Tax, I wasn't as clear as I should have been. When I say the middle class cashed out their homes, I mean that they took out huge 2nd (and 3rd...) mortgages on their existing home in order to buy "stuff".

My point is that this is not about the governor being some free spending liberal, or poor people who have some sort "disease". This is a cultural peculiarity. One that, as the credit house of cards that people like Greenspan built topples - at the same time that world oil supply plateaus, will become more and more obvious.

This plan reminds me of Bush's plan after 9/11 - "go shopping".

[it *is* funny]

On a recent visit to Western MA I visited Mass MoCA and was struck by the disparity between the Tanglewood/Jacob's pillow/Berkshires parts of the area and the towns that didn't have a similar draw. Kinda reminded me of boarded up towns in Upstate NY. If selected properly, a site in one of these under-utilized cities would be a benefit to the residents who don'thave a lot of options.

As for jobs, I understand that table dealers and restaurant (waiters/managers/bar-tender) jobs in an upscale resort/casino would be considerably better than the fast-food jobs that are currently available. Not to mention a nice boost for the local construction industries, if only temporarily.

[Casinos]

Come on Joe you Gene and the Hog would just feed at the pig pen if only you could get one for Assembly Sqare just think of the gentle SKIM of the breeze, jingle jangle.

[William Hurst]

9/11 and shopping, what did Monica go shopping for? Can we keep this thread about casinos or should we also discuss the Armenian genocide. There will be a casino in Massachusetts, owned and operated by the Wampanoags. The federal government recognizes this tribe as a sovereign nation. They can now negotiate with the federal government and bypass the state. This casino will operate tax free and its employess will not be able to unionize. The state can negotiate for a yearly fee but it is not guaranteed it will receive one. A private or publicly held casino is one that can be taxed and its employees can unionize. Which one do you want? By the way how many dishwahers or fastfood employees can afford the 100 dollar black jack tables? Is Vegas and Nevada overrun with gambleholics? What is the murder rate in Vegas compared to Boston? We do not have casinos in our state (true) but we still have homelessness, crack addicts and illiteracy. Do we blame "General Betrayus" for that?

[William Hurst]

I forgot, who is the genius who said "raise taxes" in this thread.

[Imux]

Oh the humanity!!! Casinos coming to Boston!!!! They'll bring bad people with them!!!RUN!!!!

William Hurst is dead on the money here. Casinos are in just about every state now and coming to MA whether you like it or not. This state can either share the revenue or lose out completely. Oh yeah....I love casinos (except for AC - that place is a dump still).

Also, why do the leftwing moonbats always pontificate on what is best for the rest of us? WTF?!?! Practice your social engineering on "arteeeeeests" in Davis/union square. Most of those imbeciles don't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out anwyay.

If I decide to lose a couple of grand on the craps tables that is my business. I'm doing what I want with the money I have left after the kick in the balls in taxes we ALREADY pay.

Sohl, what the hell are you taking about "raise taxes"? Good Lord.

[SomersTime]

Somebody here really has it in for local artists...

Must be nursing a long grudge ever since he flunked out of Matchbook School of Art in Bumwad, ND.

[Ron Newman]

> I love casinos (except for AC [Atlantic City] - that place is a dump still).

So, if we put casinos in Revere or Great Barrington, what's to stop them from turning into similar "dumps" ?

[Dr. Mrs. McCarthy]

BINGO! Newmie, BINGO!

[Imux]

Ron, I guess you never visited Atlantic City BEFORE casinos arrived. It was a bigger dump before then... though it is still a dump now. Actually, in relative terms, AC is less of a dump now. Casinos did help.

More importantly though, what you and your tinfoil hat friends really need to get through your illegal-immigrant-loving, always-be-raising-taxes, name monuments after artists not firefighters/police/soldiers, leftwing moonbat brains is that:

1. casinos are coming and the state can get revenue or the indians can take it all. It's a done deal.

2. If you don't like casinos - don't go, but don't F it up for the folks that do go (like me). No one asked or wants you or your libaloon friends to decide what we spend our money on. K? Thanks.

[William Hurst]

Newmie have you ever been to Vegas? The strip and downtown look better than our Davis Sq. (the jewel of Somerville) A casino is coming to Massachusetts. Do you want one that pays taxes or one that does not? Never been to Foxwoods, is it a dump?

[Ron Newman]

I've been to Las Vegas. It's busy and glitzy and lit up, but ultimately depressing.

[Election]

Vegas is VERY depressing indeed. Of course, somebody who does not realize there is more to life than a few colored lights spinning around would not understand what we are talking about.

[Matt Goodman]

Ron: "So, if we put casinos in Revere or Great Barrington, what's to stop them from turning into similar "dumps" ?"

Organized Crime?

Citizen Kane: "Newmie have you ever been to Vegas? The strip and downtown look better than our Davis Sq. (the jewel of Somerville) A casino is coming to Massachusetts. Do you want one that pays taxes or one that does not? Never been to Foxwoods, is it a dump?"

There are parts of the strip that're extremely divey. Any casino over a certain age tends to take on the dregs, and if you go off-strip it dives steeply. Also, if you leave the strip and see what the rest of Vegas looks like, it doesn't look better than Davis Square or the surrounding neighborhoods.

And at least I can walk through Davis Square without someone handing me advertisements for hookers and pornography. I defy you to walk down the strip at night and not have dozens of folks trying to stuff pictures of naked women in your hands.

I grew up in New Orleans, so I got to see first hand the "benefits" the casinos brought to the area. Placing them far, far away from where people actually live seems to work out just fine, but once you dump a casino somewhere all you're going to get in that area is casino traffic (based on my experiences in Louisiana and Mississippi).

Having said all that, I'm not against casinos. I just think you need to go in with your eyes open to what the real costs will be.

[Matt Goodman]

One more thing about casinos in Somerville:

If you want a local example of what a casino in Mass could be like (in a worst case scenario) imagine Good Times Emporium on an even larger scale. Good Times has all the booze and gambling that're currently allowed, but imagine if they could really go whole hog.

[Solh Zendeh]

William Hurst/Imux,

I said "raising taxes *or cutting spending*". I never said which was preferable, just that those are the adult choices when considering a budget shortfall.

I've been to Vegas. Your defense of literally one of the worst places on the planet speaks for itself.

As someone who leans libertarian, I have a hard time disallowing any particular activity. However, basing our future revenue on something so obviously worthless is where I draw the line.

Ring-a-ding-ding!

[Imux]

Solh, if the choice was between raising taxes or reducing expenses then I'd for cutting expenses. In my opinion, the city should police/fire/DPW (trash pickup) after that any services (silly boards, arts councils, etc) should be done via charities or private enterprise. Though casinos will allow another choice - increase revenues (thereby increasing tax revenues). It works.

All the folks who piss and moan about the evils that casinos will bring just don't like casinos. You're all entitled to that opinion, but just don't let your effeminate tendencies ruin it for the rest of us who do like to gamble. When (and they're coming) the casinos are built just don't go.

[Ron Newman]

Private enterprise won't bring us the Green Line extension we need.

[cabbie]

Ron,
Imux said private enterprise OR charities. I'm sure he'd say public transportation is the later.

Though I'm with him on casinos. I'd like to see the government cut out the protect me from myself crap. Protect me from foriegn aggressors. Protect me from corporate aggressors. Protect me from my fellow citizens who may be aggressors. But get the hell out of my personal decisions. If I want to gamble away my drug money while chain smoking Marlboros and banging back shots of double malt scotch mixed with bacon grease..that should be my decision.

Suddenly I want a BLT and a scotch.

[Election]

Yes, it's your decision. But then you have to live with the consequences, not beg the government to bail you out when you are broke and living on the street because of your addiction. But of course, double standards are the rule these days.

[Imux]

Yes, it's your decision. But then you have to live with the consequences, not beg the government to bail you out when you are broke and living on the street because of your addiction. But of course, double standards are the rule these days.

Posted by: Election | October 03, 2007 at 10:29 PM

Election, that's a deal! I am not worried about losing money (I usally win when I go) and ending up on the street. So don't you worry about it. You should also look up the definition of "double standard" before using it. K?

Cabbie, ultimately the T should be privatized. It makes money and grows or dies --- expansion shouldn't depend on taxpayer dollars. It would make money as it would be better run (hint: break the unions and get people to work for their salaries).

[Statistician]

The claim that you "usually win when you go" is demonstrably false, and it illustrates the type of person you are: A drunken liar who cannot even come up with a good lie.

[William Hurst]

People (you too Solh)
Never said I wanted a casino in Massachusetts, but one is coming here. Tribal casinos cannot be stopped. Again, do we want one that pays taxes or one that does not? This is not a trick question. As far as the flashing lights entertaining me or anyone else is concerned. Please, keep your childish comments to yourself. Is Vegas depressing? I don't know and I certainly do not care.
Let's recap this. A casino is coming to our state and we cannot stop it. Do we want one that pays taxes and its employees can unionize or one that does not.

[Solh Zendeh]

William Hurst: It is fine for a private business to take a risk and build a business - as long as the costs it incurs (including infrastructural and social) are paid *by the business* and presumably passed along to their customers. Government should be in the business of providing basic services and collecting fees for those services. Not running a scam selling the dream of hitting it big to suckers.

That said, you are right - I allowed my feeling that current society seems to revolve around getting something for nothing to obscure the fact that at least one casino is going to be built here no matter what. And we might as well have one that we can collect taxes from (that is assuming we would have no way to extract money from a tribe-run casino?) Same with drugs - legalize and tax 'em.

[Imux]

The claim that you "usually win when you go" is demonstrably false, and it illustrates the type of person you are: A drunken liar who cannot even come up with a good lie.

Posted by: Statistician

Stat, hmmmm... I've been drunk and I've certainly lied and I've done both together (drunken liar), but this is not one of those situations. I do know of some situations where I've done both togehter. Let me explain and at the same time I'll teach you how to win (at least at a casino), ok little girl?

Ready? First, play the pass line (take full odds), once the number is out then play the come (full odds) - keep your bets low when the table is cold and maximize your bets when things are hot. Once you're up and playing with house money then toss a little down on "bad" bets (hi-lo at some casinos pays 30 to 1). When you're up the amount you set to walk way with - then walk away. Then proceed to the bar (get drunk), pick up some butana (lie a little) and then take her back to your room and be a drunken liar. There you go. I've been a drunken liar and I've showed you how you too can be a drunken liar. Easy isn't it? Of course, substitute your preference (I'm guessing small farm animal) where I have "butana", but hey whatever floats your boat. I'm a tolerant guy like that.

To those who still oppose casinos all I can way is "Wake up, children". Casinos are coming - as William pointed out - we can either get SOME benefit via taxes (up to 30%) or lose out to the indians who don't need to cut us in at all. Also, stop preaching what is best for the rest of us. You imbeciles can't survive without some level of subsidized rent/housing/food/health, so why would even think about listening to the tripe coming out of your traps?

[Statistician]

There is no reliable winning strategy for casino gambling, pal. All casinos are like biased coins in the end; biased against the customer. That's how casinos can exist and make a profit.
Stop spreading disinformation and lies. Thank you.

[Imux]

There is no reliable winning strategy for casino gambling, pal. All casinos are like biased coins in the end; biased against the customer. That's how casinos can exist and make a profit.
Stop spreading disinformation and lies. Thank you.

Posted by: Statistician | October 04, 2007 at 09:38 AM

Said by someone who has obviously never won a thing in his/her life. Whatever, pal. You believe what you want and I'll know what I know. K?

[PersonDavis]

Imux that's excellent advice. The biggest problem I always see at Wonderland and Suffolk Downs is people who don't use a set amount or don't know when to walk. Their always only interested in doubling their money every bet. It doesn't work like that. That is whgen the house kicks your ass every time. Self-control is everything in betting and you have to have a strategy more so than a system. The slots are even included in that strategy.

Casinos are not that big a deal and they are definitely coming to Mass. We already have them in a way. You can take boats out of Gloucester to play low stakes so many miles at sea. They might be a poor mans tax in a way, but they are voluntary tax. No one is making you play or bet your money.

Every major employer in Somerville used to have its own in house book. We had one at MWC. But those days are gone.

Of the people I know that gamble what I would consider heavily only a very very small percentage have "lost it all" and those guys were complete morons. I'd rather see it lost to the state than to the bookies.

And don't worry. The line at the Smoke Shop lottery machine isn't going away any time soon either.

[Imux]

PersonDavis, I could not agree more. This quote says it all "They might be a poor mans tax in a way, but they are voluntary tax. No one is making you play or bet your money."

The sad part is the libaloon, moonbats want to tell us we can't play or bet our own money. And they're dumb enough to shoot themselves in the foot by giving this VOLUNTARY revenue stream up to an Indian tribe who - if they cut us in at all - will give only a small fraction of what could be.

[PersonDavis]

That is correct Imux. The state of Connecticut gets the table scraps from Foxwoods. You watch though, when New Hampshire does it, and it is only a matter of time before they do and it will be up in the Northern Country where they will also attract the Quebec people, they will make a fortune with it just like the State Liquor stores. And they know it will be a large percentage of Massholes who go up there since Mass. doesn't have casino gambling, unless we do it as well.

Also, whoever gets into this has done the numbers. They KNOW how much money their going to make with it. I can't believe that its better to see busloads of seniors leave to go gamble in Connecticut from here. Thats a damned shame as far as I'm concerned. That's money that should be staying in Mass.

The biggest problem I see is the state mismanaging the money they get from it, not people who just want to have some fun and maybe a quick thrill. What the hell's wrong with that? We're not a bunch of kindegartners!!!

[Statistician]

Imux, between the prayers, the wrong belief that you can beat a change game stacked against the user and the obvious posting under different names it is clear that you are out of your mind.

[Imux]

PersonDavis, no kidding on "The biggest problem I see is the state mismanaging the money they get from it, not people who just want to have some fun and maybe a quick thrill". At least if you gamble the money - you've had the choice on where it went and had some fun. Unlike how these PDS'ers / moonbats want it -- they just want to take the damn money upfront via higher taxes to support their 'arts" and BS programs.

Stat, so I am out of my mind because I offered my prayers and thoughts to someone going through a dificult time and I believe in casinos? Good luck to you being moral-less and Godless. That should get you real far in life.

[susan]

Well, well, well.....I don't think that Gov. Patrick will ever cease to amaze me! He doesn't seem to realize being able to say that your state hosts the very first totally smoke-free casinos in the county is not a selling point which will prompt people to arrive in droves to lose their money!

[Ron Newman (SF)]

If we no longer allow smoking in bars, restaurants, theatres, or Fenway Park, why would we want to allow it in a casino?

[Imux]

If we no longer allow smoking in bars, restaurants, theatres, or Fenway Park, why would we want to allow it in a casino?

Posted by: Ron Newman (SF) | October 16, 2007 at 10:46 AM

Ron, you have to be the dumbest poster on this planet. I generally avoid your stupid comments as something tells me your limpwristed and lamebrained, but that latest comment just needs a response.

When you get to a casino and your betting some $$$ you may want to light up a cigarette. Most people do. Casinos have smoke free areas. Isn't that enough???

Having a totally smokefree casino makes no SENSE at all. This state and these liberals are out of control trying to be the social/behaviour police for the rest of us. Worry about your own problems and stop trying to "protect" the rest of us.

[Ron Newman (SF)]

People said the same thing about bars and restaurants. Has their business suffered since the smoking ban went into effect?

[IMUX]

Ron, first - yes, bars have suffered with the smoking ban. Also, a place where food and drink is served is much different than a casino.

I take it that you have never been to a casino and/or have never gambled. let me explain...if you're at a craps table and the dice are hot - AND you need a smoke - you're not going to be overjoyed having to stop (color up), go outside, smoke and then try and get the table hot again. I have stayed at the same table for 12 or 13 HOURS (piss breaks only) when I'm up -- why would someone take 100 smoke breaks in that time.

Lastly, your typical gambler is not a tofu-eating, sandal-wearing, God-hating, terrorist-loving moonbat (PDS'ers - you and your friends). If the tables are hot and someone wants to light himself on fire at the table - I'm all for it. As long as it doesn't ruin the hot streak or get in my way.

Again... smokefree gambling areas are already in casinos. That is enough.

[Kate]

"I have stayed at the same table for 12 or 13 HOURS" "100 smoke breaks"

Why am I not surprised?

[Imux]

"I have stayed at the same table for 12 or 13 HOURS" "100 smoke breaks"

Why am I not surprised?

Posted by: Kate | October 16, 2007 at 12:29 PM

Kate, I don't go to a casino to play tiddly-winks. I go to gamble. I will say an annoyance to me is the people who bring their kids to casinos. People are drinking and gambling and their kids are running around in the lobbies. Now that is annoying and just plain dumb.

[Ron Newman]

Yeah, especially when the kids notice that their parents are losing the money they will need later for a college education.

[Imux]

Ron, I've walked out of Mohegan up almost $30,000 in a recent weekend. I take it you don't gamble, so you wouldn't know. But some people win. What can I say?

[Liberal Hypocrites]

It's amazing to me how these liberal hypocrites want to change behavior that's 'bad', but only when it suits them. Smoking is 'bad', so it must be stopped (except of course for the tax money generated by those purchasing cigarettes), however, it's okay to condone gambling, which creates all sorts of social and family problems. Heck, it's not just OK, it's state Sanctioned, state controlled gambling. Will wonders never cease???