DeLeo plan
The Middleboro ca-bingo emporium and 5 star albatross around my town’s neck continues to bubble up in the news – most recently in reports about DeLeo’s casino plan. Let’s look at a couple of cherry-picked facts in no particular order to set the mood before I talk about DeLeo.
.
There was the legislator who said to one of my peeps. “There’s not going to be an Indian casino in Middleboro. Rt. 44 is a state road. If we have to we’ll turn it into a *&$##@ one way”.
.
We have 100 plus pages of objections Governor Patrick submitted to the BIA opposing land into trust for the proposed Middleboro casino land – land that the tribe STILL doesn’t own by the way.
.
We have the tribe refusing to give us any money to get started on the infrastructure.
.
Then there was Calter, Canessa, Pacheco (who all represent Middleboro) signing on to legislation that would put the casino anywhere in the known universe except Middleboro.
.
We have the tribe fishing around Fall River to locate a casino there.
.
So that’s where we are in my estimation.
.
In today’s Enterprise we have a column from Alice Elwell that puts a Middleboro perspective on the news that Massachusetts House Speaker Robert DeLeo will introduce legislation for four slot parlors and two resort casinos. Note that most news reports are calling this a plan for two casinos when in fact it’s a plan for six. Nowhere in DeLeo’s speech was Middleboro mentioned. I have to admit that I took no notice of that until reading the Elwell column.
That Mark Belanger guy sounds like he really knows what he’s talking about. I’ll bet he’s good looking.
Would someone please explain to me why a casino has to make economic sense?
If someone wants to open a giant movie theater in Middleboro or anywhere else, does it have to make economic sense? If they plan to hire 100 people, does it matter that those 100 jobs will probably be filled from existing smaller places forced out of business?
If people want to waste their money watching movies there when they can get Netflix at home for far less, is that our concern? If the patrons eat too much candy and popcorn and cause a rise in health costs, should we stand up and rail against movie theaters?
There are things I don’t like about casinos. I think that patrons should have to get a state issued license that limits the amount of money they can risk gambling – that amount would be based on a persons financial condition and the costs associated with all that would be borne by the casinos and the tracks and the church bingo halls.
But other than that, to me it’s just another business. Businesses sometimes have undesirable social consequences – pollution, for example. We pass laws to deal with those problems and that’s exactly what we should be doing with gambling.
Tony – I can see the live-and-let-live argument, personal freedom, the right to choose to gamble and all of that. As far as “why do casinos have to make economic sense”: The movie theater and netflix examples leave out something important – those are existing businesses and just a competition situation. The reason we’re talking about this at all is that casinos are currently illegal. We’re talking about changing the law to allow them and that’s why the economic argument applies. Let’s say a full economic analysis (impossible I know) showed what I suspect – that the net economic effect of a casino is negative. Now we’re talking about my tax money and personal freedom – the freedom to NOT give my money to something that is counter-productive to creating a good economic environment.
.
Often I’ll get statements like “we already have gambling, why don’t you try to stop the lottery” or “next you’ll want to outlaw alcohol you religious moralist you” and arguments of that ilk. If I had my way, I would shut down the lottery for being the sucker tax that it is. But I don’t have my way nor do I have any interest in trying to shut it down ‘cuz I don’t really care that much. It’s here, it’s staying, and that’s reality. I’m not out to change law – just to make sure that new ones actually make sense.
.
All that said, I can understand people like yourself that see this as just another business and a personal choice issue. Something I probably didn’t understand so well 3 years ago.,
“Net economic impact negative” – there are reasonable arguments that the net economic impact of using fossil fuels is actually negative. We’re not going to outlaw cars or close down Middleboro G&E because of that, though we (hopefully) will continue work to transition to less damaging and more sustainable energy sources.
The same should be true for gambling. You and I agree that there are some extremely bad social consequences. Where we differ is that I believe those problems can be dealt with without prohibiting gambling outright.
I’ve said this before: gambling is inevitable. You are NOT going to stop this from happening. I would much rather see you put your energy to work lobbying for ideas like gambling licenses, higher taxes on gambling and so on.
As to the lottery: I *like* the lottery. Every week I spend $2.00, which I look at as a voluntary contribution of taxes that *might* have a payback. Sucker tax? No more so than not bothering to hunt for every possible deduction, which is another voluntary contribution for me, but one that has no potential for winning anything
Suppose that you needed a gambling license to buy lottery tickets? It’s not a “sucker tax” then because you couldn’t spend more in a month than your economic situation indicated is reasonable. Would you still want to close it down?
Yes, that would cost money. I’d happily pay $3.00 instead of $2 if I knew that was helping keep addicted gamblers from ruining their lives.
OK, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it would cost far more than that. Maybe there would be enforcement issues, they’d surely be cheating, abuse, scams – just like there is wirh alcohol and tobacco and porn and everything else that causes problems for some. I still can’t help thinking it’s the better way to go.
Oh, and by the way:
Netflix wasn’t an existing business and the movie industry may still not be sure they like it very much: http://current.com/items/91468087_reddit-user-20th-century-fox-discusses-buying-a-senator-and-making-netflix-illegal.htm
“Would someone please explain to me why a casino has to make economic sense?”
Um, for a start, how about to off set the costs increased crime, addiction, bankruptcies, child neglect and abuse, youth gambling, spousal abuse, environmental impacts, cannibalization of local business and lower property values.
If a nuke plant or chemical plant wanted to build in your neighborhood, they’d damn well have to make economic sense.
If you’d really like to live in a place where economic sense has been tossed to the wind, I suggest you buy a ticket to Detroit.
More accurate correlations to casinos, rather than popcorn and movies are smoking, alchemical and drugs.
The State is trying it’s best to legislate more and more limits on smoking, which is a currently legal activity.
Drugs, now currently illegal, remain so.
And we all know what happens when you make alcohol illegal.
And yet, unlike what would be the case with casinos, our State does not officially sanction or promote cigarettes, drugs or alcohol.
I can see your points Tony and the NetFlix example. I see it a bit differently. Netflix, I don’t believe, had to alter any existing laws to exist. They had an innovative idea and executed it well. Also your point about putting my energy into getting a better gambling environment is not without merit. My constant moaning and groaning about casinos I see as partially contributing to that. Adam will tell you that the anti-blogs were directly responsible for much of the improvements in the final IGA over the initial one – improvements that over time would mean millions for Middleboro.
.
I suspect that DeLeo’s legislation is going to really short change the state w/regards to fees for licenses and gaming percentages. I think the whole idea of one-time license fees, even ones that are renewable every 10 years or whatever, is STUPID. Massachusetts is prize and we should be charging top dollar for our market. All that said, wanting the best deal for Middleboro and/or Massachusetts usually just makes people accuse me of having a price. No matter how many times I say that I don’t want casinos at any price, but want the best deal if they come, seems to be a concept that most people don’t understand or don’t believe.
.
On a peripherally related topic – I like it when I can have honest disagreement and discussion without it getting nasty. Thanks for that.
Oh, Gladys, we really are singing the same song – you just interpret it differently.
I absolutely agree that we need to consider the impacts of ANY business and I agree that there can be serious social problems associated with gambling.
Where we differ is that I think all those things can (and SHOULD) be dealt with and that legislating morality is always the LAST recourse that should ever be considered – both because it seldom works and because it interferes with those who legitimately enjoy the activity (whether it is gambling, drinking, sex, whatever) without causing social problems.
Again: I’d rather see you put your energies to work making the impacts less damaging. Or at least part of your energies: y’all on the anti-casino side would make me very happy if I heard you say “If we can’t stop it, at least let’s support things that would make it less damaging”.
I can support support higher taxes on gambling. I can support making a casino or any gambling establishment liable for anyone getting drunk there (because it may lead to them gambling more than they should). I can support requiring Indian casinos to abide by no smoking laws. I’d also love to see my idea of gambling licenses because I think it could dead stop many of the social problems you are so angry about.
So we DO have things we could agree on. But I’ll never support your flat “No casino ever” stance.
The question is not if expanded gaming will come to Massachusetts but what form it will take when it arrives.
The state sponsors gaming in lotteries and race tracks. This is just another extension. The reason it exists is people want it. If they didn’t all its various forms would be dead in the water world wide. Tax it. Regulate it. Educate about it. Enjoy it. Live with it.
All the safeguards put in for degenerate gamblers are a joke. This is conscious clearing feel good legislation. They want their fix they’ll find it. You get gaming you will get that fall out. Guaranteed.
I have been to dozens of casinos in probably ten or more states. I have written on my experiences especially on a site I was shunned at. Hal’s posted them. LL has posted them. I’ve posted them. What I can say is that it is my opinion that the anti’s have over stated their “facts” and the pro’s have understated their “facts.”
I’m a NIMBY but like BB I am a NIMBY with a price. That price was not even close to being negotiated nor will it ever be. IMHO the Middleboro gin mill is dead.
The Raven was symptomatic of what you get with gaming. This is the domain of the pinky ring set. They can fly jets and have an Ivy League pedigree but so did Madoff.