Hey, there! Log in / Register
Menino could get wish: Legislature looks closer to approving casinos
By adamg on Sat, 09/19/2009 - 9:22am
And what better place to put a "resort casino" than Suffolk Downs?
Unlike Sal DiMasi, who managed to quash casinos, successor Bob DeLeo favors them.
Tom Menino has long supported a casino in Boston - two years ago, he backed a casino at the racetrack - and repeated that support earlier this week at a candidate's forum in the Back Bay, saying it would help create jobs.
At the same forum, his three opponents all opposed the idea of a casino in Boston.
"It's not real economic development when you exploit addiction," Sam Yoon said, adding the city could boost jobs through such things as promoting a "green" economy.
Kevin McCrea said any economic benefits of a casino would be negated by a large increase in "problem gambling - enough new gambling addicts to fill up the Garden - and said the city could cut the local unemployment rate by enforcing its existing requirements for hiring certain numbers of Boston residents on city-funded construction projects and replacing detail cops with flaggers from local neighborhoods.
Flaherty has a slightly open door: He said he would be willing to talk to any neighborhood actually interested in a casino, but cautioned that "casinos are hurting now," and are not the answer for the city's economic woes. He also called for enforcment of the city residency requirement on construction projects.
Neighborhoods:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Flaherty historically more open to casino gambling
In 2007 Flaherty said that casino gambling "holds much promise," but appeared to be on the fence about it. I suspect that his current position is intended to create a little more contrast with Mayor Menino, while still leaving the door open to casinos.
I just read
your link Michael, and it would seem to me that Sam Yoon and Michael Flaherty had the same position. I saw Michael and Sam at a forum this year both state almost identical positions on the issue.
Not sure why you single out Michael when both candidates feel the same way. Sam has been thoughtful on the issue as has Michael. Michael has said the people of East Boston should weigh in on the decision and have their voices be heard, much like Middleborough did when the PEOPLE voted for a resort casino in their town. Not just elected officials. Both candidates are right to not take a position on legislation and/or proposals that are not final.
DeLeo has drunk the kool-aid
In expressing his new support for casino resort-style gambling in Massachusetts, DeLeo showed that he has drunk the kool-aid from the gambling lobby by using their political marketing term "gaming":
Most legislators have been trying to avoid staking out a position on casino gambling. But you can often tell exactly where they stand by listening carefully to their words. The moment you hear the term "gaming" instead of "gambling," it's a good bet that they've been talking to gambling industry lobbyists a lot lately and are privately ready to support casinos.
Resort Casino? Really?!
And what better place for a Resort Casino than Suffolk Downs? You could have a quick shuttle bus ride to the
famous Thunderbolt and amusement parkpicturesque white sands of Revere Beach, the haute cuisine of Kelly's Roast Beef and a one-of-a-kind fantastic view of the fuel farms that receive a substantial portion of New England's gasoline and heating oil!To quote a fellow BC Alum, Really?! Really Mr. Mayor?! You think that there is ever a chance of something on the boundary of Boston and Reveah ever being seriously considered a resort? Really?!
Something this foolish actually stands a chance of getting on Weekend Update (boston teenagers resurrected!). Really.
I have experience with Casinos moving in…
Being a native of eastern Connecticut, I was there when Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun moved into town. The jobs are for the most part crummy, with only a handful of decent jobs. The state isn't getting a high enough cut from the revenues to offset the pain they've brought to the region.
Each town that surrounds them feels the hurt of the added traffic and increased needs for town services, like Fire, Police & EMS. Schools have been swamped with new children, many of which require foreign language accommodations that these small towns can't afford. Which brings us back to jobs… many of the employees at the low wages are not from the local area.
Of course, Boston is very different from rural Connecticut. But the end effect will be the same: casinos do not pay back to the community. The only people who benefit from casinos are the owners. Period. Everyone else pays. Remember, the house always wins.
Boston is a dynamic, classy, international city. It doesn't need this. Casinos are not a sustainable, responsible way to grow an economy. They are a parasite upon it.
What does the state get?
From the casinos? I heard it was some sort of flat fee per year like 200 milion or somewhere in that range.
Im sure if the town of Ledyard got that 200 million things might be a little better there no?
You can do the same effect by cutting lottery prizes...
Currently, the lottery pays out all its prizes from revenue, at the rate of 68-85%. That means for every $1 the lottery takes in, it pays back 68-85 cents in prize money.
Slash that payout by 25% (making it 51-64%) and you could roughly bring as much or more money. It would mean capping grand prizes (e.g. the grand prizes would be tiered as follows - $1 grand prize = $500 maximum prize; $2 ticket = $10,000; $5 ticket = $50,000; $10 ticket = $250,000; $20 ticket = $1,000,000 or more) and reducing the amount of grand prizes (e.g. instead of 10 $1 million winners, reduce it to 2 and redistribute the remaining $8 million to lower tier prizes).
Other lotteries in the nation do this, but where the state has been the most generous in the nation to players, the regulars will fume that the Lottery is taking in more money at their expense. The upshot of this, though, is it will make the casino argument moot (why build casinos when the Lottery is bringing in as much dough?) and the lower prizes might reduce problematic Lottery playing (why blow your paycheck on a measly $500 grand prize?). I can bet you if the Lottery put the real odds on all their tickets - which is actually eight-ten times higher than they advertise - sales would plummet like a rock.
It would seem natural to augment the Lottery with casino gambling, but then again, maybe not - too many variables, and the potential for corruption by the state and/or the casinos themselves is fairly great. Better to change the devil we know than the devil we don't.
As a famous author once said:
A foolish constituency is the hobgoblin of Menino, adored by little statesmen who want to build casinos.
(Apologies to Emerson)
Put it in Southie...
If a casino goes anywhere in metro Boston, I cannot think of a better spot than the Seaport District. There is an abundance of undeveloped land which will not be economically feasible to develop for office, hotel, residential uses for many, many years. Building a casino on this land totally changes the economics of development, and would be accretive to the nearby convention center, hotels, restaurants, etc. The area also has some of the best highway and public transportation access in the state. Putting a casino so close to downtown would have less of an impact on area residents (since relatively few people live nearby) and would ensure a first-class operation since the development would figure so prominently into the cityscape. Tucking a casino in East Boston/Revere would almost guarantee a second or third-rate operation, filled with local problem gamblers wasting away their social security and disability income checks, with a huge impact on the densely-settled surrounding neighborhoods.