After three years of debates, construction plans and voting drama over how and when and where casinos will make their debut in Massachusetts, a question on the Massachusetts 2014 general election ballot could undo all the effort.
Question 3 asks voters whether or not they wish to repeal the Expanded Gaming Law, which Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick signed into law in November 2011. The law implied that three destination resort casinos, along with one additional slots facility, be built in Massachusetts in competitively awarded locations, and was established to create more jobs in the Commonwealth, which was then shaken by the Great Recession of 2008. A “Yes” vote would repeal the act and cancel all current plans to construct casino facilities, while a “No” vote would allow for all construction activity to continue.
The first issue with the law, which is still up for debate today, has been where to put the casinos. In November 2013, Boston voted decisively against constructing a casino on the Suffolk Downs racetrack on East Boston portion of the property, ending any prospects of hosting a casino here. Revere residents voted to allow a casino on their portion of the racetrack.
Currently, only Wynn Everett has gained a license, while applicants in Western and Southeast Massachusetts are still competing for licenses in those respective regions.
Those in support of repealing the law argue that casinos would only bring disarray to a state that’s in pretty good shape. While casino destinations such as Las Vegas have been incredibly successful, a casino resort in the Commonwealth would be more comparable to those in Connecticut and Atlantic City, New Jersey, who are currently laying off employees at a growing rate.
According to support group Repeal the Casino Deal, the Expanded Gaming Law was passed when the economy was struggling and the Commonwealth needed jobs. Since then, the organization’s website states, Massachusetts has added 131,000 jobs and will add 45,000 to 50,000 each year through 2017 in industries such as finance, tech, health care and higher education.
“The casino gambling bill has a variety of costs and benefits associated with the opening of casinos across the state,” Stephen Eisele, spokesman for Repeal the Casino Deal, told The Daily Free Press in September. “We believe that the casino industry is oversaturated and in a period of volatility, evidenced by the closing of four casinos in Atlantic City this year and revenues down in Connecticut, Delaware and elsewhere.”
Furthermore, casinos and gambling are traditionally associated with unsavory characters and situations, something that can be avoidable in Massachusetts, Eisele said.
“Additionally, casinos have a number of negative consequences, which explain the need for mitigation agreements for host and surrounding communities,” Eisele said. “Rates of crime, drunk driving and domestic violence have all been seen to increase with the introduction of casinos to a community.”
Still, Question 3 has some big name opposition. Patrick, Attorney General Martha Coakley, Treasurer Steve Grossman and several other Commonwealth officials all argue for the economic benefits of a casino system. Casinos would create a market for new jobs within the Commonwealth while bringing revenue through gambling and tourism.
“Every year, Massachusetts residents spend close to $900 [million] at casinos in Connecticut, Rhode Island and Maine, adding millions to their state budgets,” Domenic Sarno, mayor of Springfield, wrote in the Massachusetts Voters Guide. “The Law already has provided voters…an opportunity to bring much needed jobs and economic activity to their communities through first-class development projects. At the same time, the Law has ensured that no community opposed to a casino within its borders will have one.”
It’s certainly true that casinos bring jobs, economic growth and tourism to whatever region they operate in, at least for a period of time. Furthermore, it’s not as if people in Massachusetts don’t gamble already — they just go elsewhere to do so. Why not build a casino within the Commonwealth and allow them to gamble the money, which they were going to spend anyway, back into the Massachusetts economy? Plus, three years have been devoted to organizing plans for these casinos, and voting yes would render those years a complete waste of time.
Yet, Massachusetts has functioned for years without casinos, and the truth is, the Commonwealth is doing just fine without them. Massachusetts recovered from the most recent economic recession faster than other states — without a casino — and continues to see economic growth.
And yes, casinos bring tourism, but this is Massachusetts, not Las Vegas. The Commonwealth, with its volatile weather and inconvenient locations, will never be the premier gambling destination of the East Coast. Do you know what else casinos bring? Crime, addiction and a whole range of seediness, something Massachusetts does not need. With that said, The Daily Free Press endorses a “Yes” vote to repeal the Expanded Gaming Law.
Perhaps you should do better research before offering an opinion. A five-second Google search would show that a license in the Western zone of the state has already been awarded to MGM Resorts for a property to be built in Springfield.