Legislature Divided;
Serious Problems Seen
Casinos Unwise for Mass., Says Rep. Bosley

Sidebar: Indian Ability to Take Land Has Destroyed Lives in Conn. By Ed Oliver March 2003 Print Edition One vocal critic of casino gambling on Beacon Hill is the Chairman of the House Committee On Government Regulations, Rep. Dan Bosley (D-North Adams). Bosley thinks it is unwise both from an economic and social perspective to approve casino gaming in the Commonwealth. He issued a report against casino gambling in April 1997 that he credits with helping to defeat a major casino and slot machine proposal that was voted on soon afterward.
		Rep. Dan Bosley (D-North Adams) is a strong critic of gambling.

Bosley tells MassNews he will oppose casino gambling if it comes up again. Asked if he could block it in his committee, Bosley says he could hold it up in his committee for 18 months, but it is not in his nature to do that. While all of the gambling bills have to go through his committee, he says he would fully expect somebody to use the budget process to add an amendment to the budget so that it would go right to the floor. "At some point, we'll have a healthy debate on the floor," he says.

Bosley thinks there will be a lively debate this year because casino lobbyists are back in force on Beacon Hill. Their argument, he says, is, "These are tough economic times, let us put up casinos to ease your burden here and make some money for the state."

But Bosley says his approach is, if it's a good idea, then it's a good idea; if it's a bad idea, then it's a bad idea, regardless of the economic times. He says he will take another hard look at it, but not much has really changed from the last time other than the economy. He says he hasn't been counting noses and does not know how many are in favor or against it. He does think that lawmakers tend to take a more serious look beyond the rhetoric at the ramifications of gambling proposals when they see that it has a realistic chance of passage.

"The arguments that are made in favor of gaming are very simplistic - 'We lose a lot of money to Connecticut and Rhode Island, why don't we open up gambling casinos and keep that money here? It will help raise revenues, revitalize cities.' They promise you everything. Once you peel back those arguments to take a closer look at them, it becomes a much more difficult sell because it presents social problems and doesn't have the economic impact proponents say it does," he says.

Bosley asks Massachusetts citizens to take a look at what other states have done, to look where states have failed to bring in revenues and casinos have failed to keep their promises of easy money. As a prime example, Louisiana had to cut gambling taxes in half or else the casinos would leave because they weren't making the kind of money they thought they should be making, he says. There are other examples around the country, says Bosley, but the point is that the promise of easy money is not necessarily true.

Aren't the big Connecticut casinos doing well? asked MassNews. Bosley agreed that Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun are two of the most successful casinos in the United States and arguably in the world. But he says nobody is suggesting that we would do as well here, because those are destination-resort casinos in the middle of a very rural area and were the first to the market.

However, even given all those advantages, last year those casinos gave to the state of Connecticut as their share of tax revenue $364 million dollars says Bosley. In Massachusetts, without casinos and only the Lottery, we returned to cities and towns almost $900 million dollars in lottery revenues minus winnings and a very small administrative fee. "We already do better than Connecticut without casinos," he says. "Cities and towns rely on the Lottery. Do you really want to disturb that, and how much more can you actually bring in?" he asks.

Bosley says if you look across the country, there are increased regulatory and law enforcement costs with casinos. There are also social costs that nobody wants to measure but everyone admits are there. Not just compulsive gamblers, but money that is diverted from economic development to casinos. Also, there are many costs related to infrastructure that have to be taken into account. Add all those up and the financial picture is not as rosy,
he says.

		Another outspoken critic of casino gambling is state Senator Susan Tucker (D-Andover). In an interview with MassNews, Sen. Tucker exhorted citizens who share her opposition to casino gambling to call their Reps and Senators to voice their objections. She asks, "Where is the magic in casino gambling?" According to her, the only reason Massachusetts is currently considering putting casinos all over the state is because of our severe budget problems. Yet, Connecticut and New Jersey, which have casinos, both have higher taxes than Massachusetts and are laying off thousands of state employees because they have huge budget deficits. "It is not a proven budgetary solution in any state and certainly will not prove to be one in Massachusetts," she says.
State Senator Susan Tucker (D-Andover) argues that despite casinos, Conn. and N.J. still have higher taxes than Mass.

If you add up the gambling proposals - expanded gambling at the four racetracks, an Indian casino and a casino in Western Mass., you get a minimum of six casinos proposed.
"That's a lot of gambling," says Tucker. "This debate is about the state encouraging an activity that has proven to result in economic problems, family disintegration and increased crime."

Sen. Tucker says it is not a moneymaker. It looks good in the first few years, but after people start gambling locally and money is taken out of the local economy, it is very bad for the community.

Tucker, who chairs the Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee, says the irony is that we are considering casinos because we are unable to fund programs for the elderly and the poor. But this is like putting a tax on those very same constituents that we are trying to help, she says.

"It's absurd public policy. It reminds me of the state trying to encourage people to smoke so that the resulting higher tax revenue can pay for stop-smoking programs. It's absurd logic."
The essential issue is the economics don't work, says Tucker. Casino gambling will have a very bad impact on any business in this state that relies on discretionary income, such as retailers and restaurants that can't compete with the subsidized buffets and shops at the casinos. It is very bad economic policy and anyone who runs a small business that runs on discretionary income ought to be extremely concerned about the notion of putting casinos all over the state."

High priced casino lobbyists never tell you the cost, says Tucker. But a cost-benefit analysis shows they are a bad bet for Massachusetts. Depending more and more on gambling for revenue is shameful and embarrassing, she says.

The only good thing you can say about the Lottery is the money stays in the state and goes back to cities and towns, says Tucker. Casino profits get shipped back to Las Vegas.
Tucker says casinos do everything to keep people indoors and gambling. There are no windows, no clocks, free drinks, etc.

Lawmakers are split over this issue at the State House, according to Tucker. A number of the legislators are looking at the pros and cons and they need to hear from their constituents, she says.

Casinos are attractive to legislators because lobbyists pitch them as free money that will solve the budget problems, says Tucker. But the more you learn about it, the more skeptical you are about the benefits.

Sen. Tucker says casino gambling has been voted down in the House three or four times, but new bills are constantly filed because of the "big bucks" involved. She estimates that there are six or seven gambling bills filed at this time. Although there really hasn't been an appetite for this in the past, she says that this year is unique because of the budget problems and the promise of quick and easy money from casino operators.

"It is particularly important that people who oppose this let their legislators know via phone, mail, e-mail, just a little note. It makes a tremendous difference when people hear from their constituents."

Sen. Tucker says Mitt Romney deserves a lot of credit for thinking outside the box on his proposal to solicit cash from out-of-state casinos in exchange for a ban on casinos in this state. She says it is fraught with all sorts of process and legal issues, but is an interesting idea.

MassNews asked Sen. Tucker why she thinks Romney made such a proposal when he is still supposed to be studying the pros and cons of casinos.

"I think the real news today is that the governor clearly understands that it is bad for the economy and bad for business," she says.

"Imagine driving down the highway and seeing a billboard saying, 'Ten miles to the nearest slot machine.' I don't think that is the vision that people have for this state that is so full of education, health care institutions, beautiful scenery from Cape Cod to the Berkshires, history, science - these are the things that make Massachusetts special."

Rep. Christopher Asselin (D-Springfield) has filed a bill that would allow non-Indian casinos in the greater Boston, Worcester and Springfield areas. He wants someone to sit down with casino operators beforehand and charge them a half-billion-dollar fee upfront to do business in this state. Asselin speaks passionately about his bill and estimates that each casino would employ about 5,000 people as a conservative estimate. He says the local communities could negotiate what percentage of their residents would be guaranteed to work there, and there would be property taxes and income taxes coming in also. Foxwoods doesn't pay any property taxes because they are tribal, he says.
		Rep. Christopher Asselin (D-Springfield) wants casinos in the Springfield, Worcester and Boston areas.

Asked how much money it would bring in, Asselin says there is no real way to measure it, but the Swift Gambling Commission estimated about a billion dollars a year goes out of Massachusetts to Connecticut casinos.

"I think this would be a great boon. If you don't act soon, you are going to have Rhode Island put one up, New Hampshire also, and they are talking about putting one in New York on the Massachusetts border near the Pike at Stockbridge."

Asselin says he knows some of the churches have moral objections, but he says churches have had bingo for years. In answer to the litany of social ills that the opponents cite, he says casinos will give stimulus and jobs to the state because we have no more manufacturing coming in. The only thing going for us are car sales and the housing market because of low interest rates.

He says a Newton businessman who owns the Venetian Casino in Las Vegas wants to put a billion-dollar casino in Boston.

Sentiment is growing on Beacon Hill for the casino idea, says Asselin. He says he has stood up in caucus and challenged other lawmakers to be inventive and look for new sources of revenue rather than raising taxes. He thinks, for instance, that the proposed slots at the racetracks should be owned by the state, which would lease them out and split the profits fifty-fifty.

"If you don't want to gamble, don't go there," says Assselin. He suggested the casinos should have to pay for social problems by having a percentage go to Gamblers Anonymous or programs to help the poor, etc. The casinos are willing to negotiate, he says. They want to do business here, although when asked by MassNews, he says he hasn't spoken with any casino people.

Asselin says his idea hasn't caught fire yet but will very soon when people start looking at the 2004 budget and realize they have to cut 18%. He says he tells them, 'Look guys, forget the taxes. You can't tax people when they are down and out. You've got to be inventive.' Asselin criticized Romney's plan to ban casinos for cash. "Massachusetts is always the last one to get on the train. I'm getting a little tired of it," he says.

		Asselin says his co-sponsor, John Fresolo (D-Worcester), has the Worcester Airport in mind as a location for a casino. Rep. David L. Flynn (D-Bridgewater) and the dean of the Mass. House of Representatives, tells MassNews his bill is calling for 1500 slot machines at each of the four race tracks in Massachusetts because of competition nearby in Rhode Island with slot machines at Lincoln Downs and Jai Lai in Newport.
Foxwoods Resort Casino and Mohegan Sun are two of the most successful casinos in the United States. Both are resort casinos and were the first to the market in New England. (Photo courtesy of Foxwoods Resort Casino)

Flynn says that Foxwoods is also drawing our residents. He sent a photographer down there last year and saw more Massachusetts plates than Connecticut or Rhode Island. He knows that people from senior centers and others are going down there by the busload.
"It only makes sense that we are losing untold millions of dollars. Where these racetracks are already established, it would only be a matter of four to six weeks to go into slot machines. I think its day has come."

Flynn believes that slots are better than casinos, which would take four to six years to get up and running after going through the legislative process and construction. Asked if he has spoken to slot machine promoters, he says no, but the racetracks are all ready to purchase slot machines immediately.

Flynn says he opposed the lottery when it first came up years ago, but he was wrong. He says if you tried to take it away now, it would be impossible with so much aid going to education, etc.

"I just think, in the dire straits we are in, we have to face the fact that people are going to gamble. These four establishments are all well run. They all have restaurants and they have a built-in clientele already. Why lose this money to all these other states?"

Flynn estimated that the slots would bring into our state coffers $250 to $400 million. He left it up to the Government Regulation Committee to decide what percentage the state and host community would get.

Asked what kind of sentiment exists in the House for this kind of plan, Flynn says he thinks this year it is much more favorable. Last year there were 58 votes and the leadership wasn't in favor of it. But he says the leadership has softened its position and it only needs to get 23 more votes than last year, which he thinks is a high possibility.

"It's not going to solve the problems of the state, but every nickel counts," says Flynn.

Sidebar:

Indian Ability to Take Land Has Destroyed Lives in Conn.
Tribes are 'Sovereign Nations'

By Ed Oliver

An eye-opening article in Yankee Magazine in Sept. 1998 described the experience of townsfolk living near the booming, Indian-run Foxwoods Casino in Connecticut.

The story tells how townsfolk are battling the billionaire Mashantucket Pequot tribe, owners of Foxwoods, who are buying up sections of the surrounding towns of Ledyard, Preston and North Stonington in order to annex the land to the reservation. Annexation makes the property sovereign territory, removing it from the tax rolls and making it immune from most state and local zoning and other regulation.
		Fox Towers Hotel in Ledyard, Connecticut, stands tall amidst the rural landscape.

"The residents who oppose annexation don't see reverence for ancestral streams and woods in the Pequots' quest for a bigger reservation. They see simple greed, a rich tribe using a flawed federal policy to get richer," says the story.

The casino pays only a relative pittance to the towns, who are bearing the brunt of living next to the sprawling complex. The volunteer fire and ambulance brigade collapsed under the workload. Crime shot up. Extra police had to be hired. Traffic has become a nightmare, roads and infrastructure are more expensive to maintain, and locals have to watch for intoxicated, angry drivers leaving the casino after losing their money but with free liquor under their belt. Adding insult to injury, townspeople are called racists for trying to fight back.

Worst of all, their complaints have fallen on deaf ears. Locals feel they have been betrayed by their elected representatives, who have benefited by campaign contributions from the tribe and by a flow of casino revenue into state coffers.

The tribal millions seem to have influenced federal overseers. According to the story, "A recent Senate investigation suggested a link between the Pequots' extreme generosity to the Democratic National Committee-more than $800,000 in donations-and [Interior Secretary] Babbit's favorable attention."

In an instance of Clinton Administration corruption closer to home, the Nipmuc Nation of Central Massachusetts was granted federal recognition and authority to build a casino on the last day of the Administration by an official who then began working as a lobbyist for Indian casinos.

The recognition was subsequently overturned by the Bush Administration, which found that nearly half of the Nipmuc membership rolls were deliberately inflated through recruitment of non-blood related distant relatives and others.