Editorial, Opinion

STAFF EDIT: Betting on casino legislation

Massachusetts legislators are once again pursuing statewide casino approval after Gov. Deval Patrick rejected last year’s bill. Mohegan Sun, a casino chain, is interested in building a resort in Palmer and another company is interested in building a casino in Holyoke. But approved gambling legalization would have more of a negative influence on the community than a positive one, despite representatives’ promises that casinos will be sources of revenue in poorer areas.

Chief executive officer of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority Mitchell Etess told Massachusetts legislators on Feb. 8 that a Mohegan Sun would fit perfectly in Palmer, although the town is extremely small and by no means affluent. A thriving resort wouldn’t fit aesthetically in such a quaint environment to begin with and would undoubtedly infuriate residents upon its opening. It’s unreasonable to bring tourism and crime to what would have otherwise existed indefinitely as a peaceful all-American town.

Resort CEOs know that gamblers go to casinos and spend money without getting any back. It’s essentially their own free-for-all, which in the case of legalization would influence poor citizens to deliver unearned cash to the government.

This then creates a cycle that goes all the way down to the family sphere: with a trigger so close, gambling addicts would waste necessary finances that could otherwise be spent on necessities such as groceries and education. Casino advocates will argue that Massachusetts residents are responsible for their own addictions, but while that’s true, tantalizing opportunities need not be actively made available.

It appears that pro-gambling legislators are taking advantage of the nation’s economic state to get rich on the presumption that casinos will create jobs in communities when the government should be focusing on creating jobs that aren’t detrimental to the community. Patrick should approach these new attempts with the same audacity as last year and refuse to compromise on the basis that anybody’s potential economic and personal plight is more important than alleviating debt.

Website | More Articles

This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.

Comments are closed.